Drop the cap on xp loss for deaths

brutus · Post by **brutus** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:34 am

The xp loss from dieing on a col is laughable I mean i lost less than 1kxp from a death when i had over 100k xp where is the risk in that? Tbh the excitement of invading has gone no sense of danger or loss i dont even care if i get invaded i just take them back . But even that is getting boring i think the cap has taken all the fun outta invading. The only people who benefit are xp whores and those wanting to amass huge amounts of followers in a short amount of time . Increasing the xp loss dieing on a col will keep the builders happy but that can be equalled by increasing the xp loss on losing a col to keep the invaders happy. The truth is its too easy to invade without the risks..

brutus · Post by **brutus** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:57 pm

hmm i thought woulda been at least a few comments on this ? I guess the quality and mentality of players has decreased so much people have become accustomed to playing without risks . Or maybe i just installed the wrong game with the same name! Either way i thought this was a game of daring where you had to have balls to achieve anything. Not so apparently!!

Post by **Toonces** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 7:27 pm

I think it's a poor idea.

gamanche · Post by **gamanche** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:53 pm

i like being able to come home and get stoned, and then die and laugh and say haha, only lost 100k exp

GuardianDragon · Post by **GuardianDragon** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:47 pm

indeed, this is a poor idea, the high loss of EXP is what caused a lot of ragequit.
If you want to limit invading...well, that's what fuel is for, to limit your gameplay.

Let me ask you a few things...Are you in school or have a job? is it stressful? Do you want to play a game for the fun of it, or just to be intimidated by the risks of doing something crazy. Crazy things tend to by hilarious at most times, which means having fun, and that leads to loosening up a bit. Making a game nerve racking like that only adds more stress we don't need...honestly, why would you add more risk to the game.

Alright, here's one more reason, just a little rhetorical question. Have you ever seen a (very) successful game that had high risk as a key element?

gamanche · Post by **gamanche** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:09 pm

IM PRETTY sure this is removed now.. as of like 20 minutes ago... because i dont see anybody in the yellow or red on any servers... maybe its just a hug up from the rollback?

brutus · Post by **brutus** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 1:32 am

Toonces wrote:I think it's a poor idea.

ok think of it this way a guy with 100million xp die,s 10times=1mil loss =1%of his total A guy with 5million die,s the same amount=20% of his total. It seems the more you have the less you lose not a very good inspiration to any one wanting to start an empire and challenge those at the top. But a very good reason to invade by those at the top.Not exactly balanced is it!.

GuardianDragon · Post by **GuardianDragon** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 2:56 pm

I don't think you realize how much people hate to loose exp. Every one of my friends from 3 years ago have quit because of too much exp loss, they thought the game was a waste of time.
The guy has lots of exp, looses a bunch of it then rage quits. Everyone's happy now, everyone invades U.N. colonys, someone else gets to the top, this happens all over again. Then what we get is people who want something that will only make them quit. And once they realize that, they'll give up.

To fix the whole thing about the high player being to strong...Toonces already did something. You have to have followers to keep your high exp, or else your exp will fall on it's own. That was an update a month or so ago I think. If you want to knock down the high players...then INVADE them.
The point isn't to demolish a player with one kill, it's just way to easy.

It's like getting shot with a bullet, or slashed by a sword. Which is more heroic. Of course dieing by sword is more heroic, the battle takes more than .2 second. You have to fight with your own power, your own skills, blocking and attacking. This is what people want to see in a video game, because that's what is interesting. This is why war games are interesting and intense, it lasts longer than .2 of a second. (or one battle) Of course a single slash or a single bullet will end the battle, but the sword takes a longer time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... DxMgFbyBTo you get my idea...short of long fights?

brutus · Post by **brutus** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:45 pm

GuardianDragon wrote:indeed, this is a poor idea, the high loss of EXP is what caused a lot of ragequit.
If you want to limit invading...well, that's what fuel is for, to limit your gameplay.

Let me ask you a few things...Are you in school or have a job? is it stressful? Do you want to play a game for the fun of it, or just to be intimidated by the risks of doing something crazy. Crazy things tend to by hilarious at most times, which means having fun, and that leads to loosening up a bit. Making a game nerve racking like that only adds more stress we don't need...honestly, why would you add more risk to the game.

Alright, here's one more reason, just a little rhetorical question. Have you ever seen a (very) successful game that had high risk as a key element?

ya here`s a very very succesful game with very very high risk =Poker

brutus · Post by **brutus** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:41 pm

GuardianDragon wrote:I don't think you realize how much people hate to loose exp. Every one of my friends from 3 years ago have quit because of too much exp loss, they thought the game was a waste of time.
The guy has lots of exp, looses a bunch of it then rage quits. Everyone's happy now, everyone invades U.N. colonys, someone else gets to the top, this happens all over again. Then what we get is people who want something that will only make them quit. And once they realize that, they'll give up.

To fix the whole thing about the high player being to strong...Toonces already did something. You have to have followers to keep your high exp, or else your exp will fall on it's own. That was an update a month or so ago I think. If you want to knock down the high players...then INVADE them.
The point isn't to demolish a player with one kill, it's just way to easy.

It's like getting shot with a bullet, or slashed by a sword. Which is more heroic. Of course dieing by sword is more heroic, the battle takes more than .2 second. You have to fight with your own power, your own skills, blocking and attacking. This is what people want to see in a video game, because that's what is interesting. This is why war games are interesting and intense, it lasts longer than .2 of a second. (or one battle) Of course a single slash or a single bullet will end the battle, but the sword takes a longer time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... DxMgFbyBTo you get my idea...short of long fights?

M aybe your not getting my point : In laymans terms the xp loss cap on deaths lessened the risks for high xp players and did nothing for low xp players all i am asking for is the same risks to be returned to what they were.:let me correct you on this:Toonces already did something. You have to have followers to keep your high exp, or ese your exp will fall on it's own. This was to clear inactive player s from the top 25 of games not because they were too strong.

GuardianDragon · Post by **GuardianDragon** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 2:09 am

you don't seem to realize...there will be positives and negatives to making this change. you've listed the positive, and I've listed the negative. After looking at this thread, I don't see that changing back will be worth the problems.

and about that rule...it doesn't matter what it was meant for, that's what it does, if your better than them, then prove it. The rule didn't say anything about inactivity or not.
Those guys didn't get in the top 25 in a couple days you know...they worked months. And if you raise the exp loss then they loose too much perhaps, then they get unhappy about loosing what they think is an unfair amount, then they think this was all a waste of time...then they rage quit. loosing all our good players...and leaving all our servers with newbs. If you pay attention on active servers. The few experienced players still around tend to complain about the high number of newbs.
just to clarify...this isn't just about risk. There are many elements. Look at the bad things also too, and decide if it's worth it to increase exp loss.

brutus · Post by **brutus** » Sun Sep 09, 2012 10:44 pm

GuardianDragon wrote:you don't seem to realize...there will be positives and negatives to making this change. you've listed the positive, and I've listed the negative. After looking at this thread, I don't see that changing back will be worth the problems.

and about that rule...it doesn't matter what it was meant for, that's what it does, if your better than them, then prove it. The rule didn't say anything about inactivity or not.
Those guys didn't get in the top 25 in a couple days you know...they worked months. And if you raise the exp loss then they loose too much perhaps, then they get unhappy about loosing what they think is an unfair amount, then they think this was all a waste of time...then they rage quit. loosing all our good players...and leaving all our servers with newbs. If you pay attention on active servers. The few experienced players still around tend to complain about the high number of newbs.
just to clarify...this isn't just about risk. There are many elements. Look at the bad things also too, and decide if it's worth it to increase exp loss.

Man i always look at the pos,+neg, aspects you keep mentioning ppl leaving because of losing too much xp i know ppl who left because of the xp cap on deaths and also the solar reduction and a few who are inactive some less active thats a 2 edged sword so i,ll agree to disagree on that. Also i happen to agree with the xp loss regarding too few followers that is something i have never disputed. my dispute is the xp loss for deaths being capped at 100k max ! A much fairer and equal system would be a % of xp .

GuardianDragon · Post by **GuardianDragon** » Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:35 pm

ah, all you meant is the 100k cap...lol.
well, I think there is a %, up to 100k. It's like...10%? something like that. meaning you would need 1mill exp to loose 100k and beyond that, the limit doesn't increase.
....

well, what do you think it should be then?

brutus · Post by **brutus** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:52 pm

GuardianDragon wrote:ah, all you meant is the 100k cap...lol.
well, I think there is a %, up to 100k. It's like...10%? something like that. meaning you would need 1mill exp to loose 100k and beyond that, the limit doesn't increase.
....

well, what do you think it should be then?

On re-bangs i would leave it as is .Its permas where its disproportionate some with over 100mil have no prob, losing 100k its only like 10% of 1% a very small loss so a minimal risk . Why should their risk be lower than someone with say like 5mil xp who lose the same amount ? Because of that smaller corps or solo players get swallowed up and lose interest .I know this personally i've spent weeks building to get a decent empire only to log and find i lost 50% /70% of my followers in a single night and although they died a couple of times its a calculable risk where the gain is higher than the loss

GuardianDragon · Post by **GuardianDragon** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:02 pm

ok, so...since you started this topic, I'm sure you have an idea on what to change it to? you still haven't said what it should be changed to if this were to happen.

brutus · Post by **brutus** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:01 pm

[quote="GuardianDragon"]ok, so...since you started this topic, I'm sure you have an idea on what to change it to? you still haven't said what it should be changed to if this were to happen.[/quote Ideally for me there was nothing wrong with the way it was before the change,but i guess that could be tweaked to something more acceptable across the board. Maybe they could have lessened the % a little but not so much as to compromise the balance. I sorta understood why some asked for the change i just didn't think it would have been so drastic i mean going from what it was to what it is it was like a total reversal . I have always believed the higher you are the bigger the risk that is how it has always been from the games launch. i mean if it ain't broke why fix it? tweak it yes .But to re-invent it definitely not it has totally unbalanced the game to where its childlike simple . Now i don't know if that's the direction toonces has chosen to go and if so i guess its not my direction. I cant play it as it Is atm and that's a shame i have always enjoyed playing through all the changes adapting as i go but this is a change i cant accept it isn't worth building , invading is almost without risk so what is the point.

Ardy · Post by **Ardy** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:10 am

You realize that experience is of little value to most people and the few people who have large amounts of it tend to care about it more, so by limiting the damage done to the "top" players, you are making the loss in value more equal in terms of risk as measured by the utility of experience.

Mizro · Post by **Mizro** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:50 pm

TBH i think the idea of a cap is kinda stupid. I have always been an invader and I die quite often, but that is part of invading . If you are afraid to lose exp then just build. But think about it, exp does NOTHING so why would you be afraid to lose it? Im sure nobody cares about my opinion but there it is anyways...

Zangetsu · Post by **Zangetsu** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:42 pm

brutus wrote:
GuardianDragon wrote:ah, all you meant is the 100k cap...lol.
well, I think there is a %, up to 100k. It's like...10%? something like that. meaning you would need 1mill exp to loose 100k and beyond that, the limit doesn't increase.
....

well, what do you think it should be then?
On re-bangs i would leave it as is .Its permas where its disproportionate some with over 100mil have no prob, losing 100k its only like 10% of 1% a very small loss so a minimal risk . Why should their risk be lower than someone with say like 5mil xp who lose the same amount ? Because of that smaller corps or solo players get swallowed up and lose interest .I know this personally i've spent weeks building to get a decent empire only to log and find i lost 50% /70% of my followers in a single night and although they died a couple of times its a calculable risk where the gain is higher than the loss

people with 100m exp lose 10m exp not 100k lol damn get high exp then u might know this stuff before u start saying BBQ xD, 200m exp u lose 20m, also toonces made it so u lose high amounts of exp when cols get taken (high only when you and your corp has a crap load of exp 100m+) monica on GA has 800m exp she loses crap loads per cap, exp is fine the way it is.

MillionthVector · Post by **MillionthVector** » Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:45 pm

I think there's too many lag and glitch deaths for this to be a good idea yet

.

WeGotDeathStar · Post by **WeGotDeathStar** » Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:59 pm

Exp means nothing on a perma, only the token whore players care about losing exp. As stated the risk of invading went out the window with one patch, PvP was ruined as well. All you crybaby's got what you wanted and the rest of the game suffered, no surprise here.

No surprise the games a ghost town with only people that bought out their bans with tokens. Enjoy your virtual token bought empires while you can cause when the game goes down for good you get nothing in the end.

MillionthVector · Post by **MillionthVector** » Fri Nov 23, 2012 8:42 pm

I've never purchased tokens.
I think it improved PVP and invading because people aren't worried about losing their EP as much anymore, now they can try extra-risky caps and battles now.

Zangetsu · Post by **Zangetsu** » Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:15 pm

MillionthVector wrote:I've never purchased tokens.
I think it improved PVP and invading because people aren't worried about losing their EP as much anymore, now they can try extra-risky caps and battles now.

agrees with you, its true

u can ask aftershock, il spam die on cmines for laugh, high roller knows about this

brutus · Post by **brutus** » Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:28 am

Zangetsu wrote:
people with 100m exp lose 10m exp not 100k lol damn get high exp then u might know this stuff before u start saying BBQ xD, 200m exp u lose 20m, also toonces made it so u lose high amounts of exp when cols get taken (high only when you and your corp has a crap load of exp 100m+) monica on GA has 800m exp she loses crap loads per cap, exp is fine the way it is.

Thats what it maybe now but back when this was patched the news stated death was capped at 100k xp loss max check it out . Also i have not commented on xp lost on invasions check out subject heading Re: Drop the cap on xp loss for deaths! .

Zangetsu · Post by **Zangetsu** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:23 pm

thats prob cos he was testing things? dnt I love you man! cos he puts something new into the game even tho its not even new? so why the hell bring something so old up? o.0 who cares about exp gain or loss?. no one........ unless ur a nub lol. on ga i lose 1.3m everytime i die.. lol just grow up stop crying about pointless things. the exp is fine the way it is. end of

brutus · Post by **brutus** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:05 pm

Zangetsu wrote:thats prob cos he was testing things? dnt I love you man! cos he puts something new into the game even tho its not even new? so why the hell bring something so old up? o.0 who cares about exp gain or loss?. no one........ unless ur a nub lol. on ga i lose 1.3m everytime i die.. lol just grow up stop crying about pointless things. the exp is fine the way it is. end of

Not relevant at all

Zangetsu · Post by **Zangetsu** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:24 am

when the hell did i put dnt i loveyou man! into that makes no sense o.0... toonces? xD

brutus · Post by **brutus** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:15 pm

Cloud1 wrote:The cap on XP forces players to not fight anyone, while people can just huddle in their arms. I rather see alternative ways to achieve exp than having followers. I guess this game became a mine craft type than a pvp action game.

Having the risk of losing exp means you'll use more skill not to die. Every RPG/FPS have some kind of risk for dying, a bad k/d, or starting over when you last saved.

yeah pretty much what i ,m saying with little risk the excitement has gone and its turned into a numbers game.

Its a shame i used to really enjoy SGE

brutus · Post by **brutus** » Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:48 am

Cloud1 wrote:
brutus wrote:
Cloud1 wrote:The cap on XP forces players to not fight anyone, while people can just huddle in their arms. I rather see alternative ways to achieve exp than having followers. I guess this game became a mine craft type than a pvp action game.

Having the risk of losing exp means you'll use more skill not to die. Every RPG/FPS have some kind of risk for dying, a bad k/d, or starting over when you last saved.
yeah pretty much what i ,m saying with little risk the excitement has gone and its turned into a numbers game.

Its a shame i used to really enjoy SGE
It does help with invasion, but if you look at the bigger picture. You can't take someone down from top rankings unless you outbuild or invade him, so if someone is more active then you, they can win gold. but you should still play and invade and fight.

Yeah ive done all that nah i just like things the way they were when i started playing i dont mind changes but this was 1 too far i,ll look in now and then to vade or fight maybe! and check to see if it improves but i cant see it changing anytime soon .

AKA Copler · Post by **AKA Copler** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 8:44 am

I agree the exp cap should be removed there's no risk really