Get the Desktop App for Battle.net Now
- All your games in 1 place
- Log in once
- Automatic game updates
I believe the solution to the 'Death Penalty' discussion is not merely a punishment on death, but more of a 'Survival Incentive'.
I'd prefer a 'Survival Bonus' applied to either MF or Drop Rate, that persists between games and logins, takes a long time (hours of play) to build up, and decreases a little every time you die.
The charging of the bonus could be based on exp of the monsters, perhaps? If you survive for a long time, you become more efficient so it's in your best interests to avoid death. The death penalty shouldn't take away ALL of the bonus - just some of it - but it would take a significantly long time to 'charge' it back up.
A good death penalty should
1) Not be a downward spiral
Which means, it should not press people further and further down.
Thus penalizing those who are already suffering.
An example would be losing items on death, where you make someone weaker, so they are even more likely do die next time. Or losing lvls as another extreme.
This is connected to:
2) The thing lost should be unlimited in supply, but valuable to all players
As in, don't take something away from people, which they can run out of - preventing them from continuing.
Example: Don't take gold away from people.
Either people have so much gold they do not care, or they have so little that you get back to point 1.
While you should not be able to lose something you can potentially run out of, the flip-side is, that the thing lost should be something everyone desires to have.
3) Never make penalties time-based.
A 5 minute debuff for example only makes people go afk for 5 minutes. With the risk of them just leaving the game - which isnt exactly in Blizzards interest.
Timers are ineffective and non-fun penalties.
This leads to:
4) A death penalty should encourage you to get back into the fight
Whatever the player loses, it should be something they can (only) regain by going out and destroy monsters.
That is more fun, and it encourages getting up on the horse again.
I don't really care how exactly how a death penalty is designed, as long as it follows these rules.
Losing NV, or getting a new type of Survival Bonus as Magna describes, can both fulfill these criteria. As long as the loss is valuable enough for people to care.
Edited by Shadout#2849 on 10/22/2013 9:19 AM PDT
Not exactly high up on the priority list imo.
It should be relatively high up (obviously not comparable to fixing itemization...).
A death penalty does its fair share to help itemization, by placing more value in defensive stats.
It adds excitement and feel of danger to combat.
Not exactly high up on the priority list imo.
I see removing LS doing more on that topic. Defensive stats become moot compared to a % scaling defensive stat based on your offense. Build dps to win.
Wasted time + gold cost for repair seem aight to me. Don't mind exp loss if it doesn't go below the current level. Sometimes I just feel like putting myself in impossible situations just to see if I can manage to live. Do a lot of rounding up zones in mp10 with this gear.
I guess I make my own danger?
It really forces you to stop and think about your build,gear and playstyle instead of just throwing yourself at the enemy like a mindless drone which completely trivializes difficulty of the content
If the content is difficult than you would not be able to throw yourself at the enemy like a mindless drone.
Having to walk back is enough of a penalty. If you just moronically throw yourself at the enemy and die every time, you aren't going to GET any exp in the first place....because you'll always be walking back.
Adding an exp penalty really just punishes you for the server's lag. It was an incredibly obnoxious part of D2, especially when one was on dial-up. Oh look, connection lost. That's another hour of grinding. Yippee.
Got sick of it fast.
If you die to disconnects/lag, the fix should be to stop deaths from disconnects/lag. Not to have a weak death penalty to accommodate disconnect deaths.
That is just a prime example of looking at issues the wrong way.
Death penalties aren't so much about moronically throwing yourself at enemies, dying every 5 second, since yeah, running back should mostly disincentivize that.
It is much more about, not having the drastically best build options be glass-cannons, since it is so much better to kill twice as fast, even if it means you die once every hour or similar.
Not that glass cannons should be non-viable, they just shouldn't be the only correct way to play.
Since that removes choices.
Both in terms of skill choices and gear choices.
Edited by Shadout#2849 on 10/22/2013 10:12 AM PDT
Hardcore mode is a fun way to play the game.
But it has no bearing on how SC should be designed.
As you say, pretty much any death penalties in SC would be insignificant compared to HC. They simply are not comparable.
Yeah. I kinda liked that death penalty on a conceptual level.
Although it was way too severe to be reasonable, especially in Diablo 3. It nearly turned SC into HC. Sacred 2 just happened to be really easy to survive in, which isn't very fun either.
In Sacred 2 over time you build up, what basically was a never-ending stack of Nephalem Valor. It didnt specifically give MF, but rather it gave a little bit of many stats.
More importantly, the higher stack the higher lvl of the enemies. Pretty much auto-scaling MonsterPower. Which in turn meant higher lvl drops too.
So when you died, you lost this stack totally. Which meant you lost the stat benefit (not that important), you lost access to the higher level enemies and their drops, but the game also became easier again because of this, helping the player who might have struggled at the higher "monster power".
Death was very meaningful, and the longer you lived the more benefits, but also the more danger.
The survival bonus was build up with diminishing return, so even after a few hours after a death you could have regained a lot of the lost benefits/dangers, but getting all of it back could take much longer.
It was an interesting dynamic.
But also had its own issues as mentioned before.
Edited by Shadout#2849 on 10/22/2013 10:29 AM PDT
I think losing NV would be appropriate. It would also encourage people to maybe build a little differently.
I can't play SC because it just feels so boring. No risk vs. reward at all, just a massive time sink. Someone on this forum once asked a great question regarding the current state of SC and why he only played HC: "If I can never lose am I even playing a game anymore?"
I did a little philosophy in my head and decided that's why I didn't enjoy SC D3.
That would be easy to stop. Such as it builds up by you killing monsters (some combination of how much dmg is dealt and how many monsters killed, to make killing both white mobs and elites reasonably equal), doing loot runs etc.
Hey, we already have such a system, XP!
A buff building up simply by waiting X time would clearly be terrible.
In sacred 2, survival bonus did only build up if you were in combat. That was not a very bright solution, since people soon figured out you could find some very weak monsters, stand there over night letting your hp regen outdo their dmg.
By making it build on dmg/kills, you also create a more interesting dynamic between offensive and defensive. You would build your survival bonus slower the more defensive you went.
Edited by Shadout#2849 on 10/22/2013 11:26 AM PDT
Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.
Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.
Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.