Skill loss upon death!?

I think right now Level 120 and up is High Level. Just my feeling.
Since we are under construction, High Level can and may be tuned to whatever Port wants.
Death becomes meaningful at some higher level, whereas now we hardly notice it.

The main idea is that there is no skill cap unless you die. Decay only procs on death at high levels.

 

LOL Ya that would be bad, but GM level 100 Skills are still too low to notice much decay.
The cool thing is you can push past where the cap should really be, and become Over Powered - as long as you don't die!

Even when you die, the Decay is a fixed maximum of EXP which gets sucked out of your EXP Pool first, and then if there is not enough EXP in your pool, it pulls it out of your skills.
It is a 3 day maximum decay. So at 3 days of not dying you have reached your maximum decay.
If you simply keep a reasonable amount of EXP for your level in your pool, you will never lose skill.

Additionally, if you die and repeat die you will not lose any more EXP after your first death, because it takes 3 days to fill the decay pool.

I think someone over at Port is a genius.

 

This system does very little to address the problem of people accumulating hundreds of GM skills, and not having to make any decisions about the build of their character. A successful decay system will force players to make choices about who they are, and what skills are important to them.

I would rather see a system where we have to pick a certain number of skills that will never decay and the rest are very vulnerable to it, or a system that counts all a players skill points over 40 and applies increasing decay as that number grows.

Both those options would make people choose who they are. They would either pick the 10-20 skills that are important to them, in the first system. In the second they would choose to keep the skills to fewer but with higher ranks because they wouldn't want to raise too many skills they don't use because it would increase decay.

 

I keep hearing over and over how the skill decay will be "not too significant".

I'd just like to officially disagree, and ask the devs to be gentle, and "dial back" whatever they're thinking.


Here is the proof it will be significant:
1. The devs have declined to give the math... every time they're asked.
-> If decay was insignificant... they'd be happy to SHOW US just exactly HOW SMALL IT IS... so we'd all be happy and thrilled about it.
-> They've released the math on exactly how the xp pool is accrued... but they really don't want to talk about the workings of decay.
-> When people won't talk about something, buckle up... it's a bad sign.


2. The devs have admitted they're only going to introduce it a "little at a time" each month... so it doesn't create too much outrage.
-> Ummm... if adding it all in at once would upset us... then they KNOW perfectly well it's "significant".
-> Claiming it's insignificant, and then at the same time admitting it has to be introduced "a little at a time" to prevent outrage.... errr.... that's a pretty clear contradiction, and a pretty clear indication we're not going to like it.
-> In a nutshell: It would "appear" that it's bad, and they know it's bad, and they know it will upset us, and their contradictory statements seem to verify this.

(Lots of nice people say things that seem contradictory. I'm not making this an ethical issue... just pointing out a logical inconsistency.)


To be Fair:
1. The developers have every right to develop the game however they see fit.
2. If the devs change development direction every time the wind blows, or every time someone like me complains... it would destroy development.
3. Nonetheless, as a customer, I have the right to "politely disagree" with things I don't particularly appreciate.


I'm not looking forward to decay in a game.
I already have enough trouble with the produce I forget about in my fridge.