Diablo® III

Will the Real Death Penalty Please Stand Up?

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/7923723768
Reply Quote
This idea is far more worthy than that treasure goblin thing and it's a shame it's getting ignored because it doesn't have a blue tag.
Reply Quote
10/22/2013 08:28 AMPosted by Magna
I'd prefer a 'Survival Bonus' applied to either MF or Drop Rate


I like it
Reply Quote
If you die in a game you die in real life, the death penalty should reflect this.

It will make people stop and think about what it means to throw themselves at hordes of enemies in hopes of valuable awesome loot!
Reply Quote
10/23/2013 01:59 AMPosted by Gares
As I said in the other thread. I back this, cause it promotes good play.


I think what you mean is:

"As I said in the other thread. I back this, cause it promotes my style of play."

Not everyone feels the need to be punished by a video game because they don't play your way. In addition, not everyone feels that others need to be punished by a video game because they don't play your way.
Reply Quote
I personally like the death penalty as is with the repair cost and time spent to get back there. The only thing that should be changed, and quite honestly surprised me a little to find they didn't, would be that mobs should have their life back to full after a death.

Having a less restrictive death penalty allows for people to push themselves a bit more whether when playing with new builds or climbing up the MP ladder. If people want to repeatedly and stupidly throw themselves at a challenge without any regard for improving only to fail at it - fine, doesn't bother me one bit but they aren't going to gain anything at all, and that's penalty enough.
Reply Quote
There was a penalty. It was a huge amount of gold to pay. But I guess the RMAH warriors got tired of buying gold every day instead of every other day so Blizzard removed it. Contrary to popular belief, Blizzard does listen to the fan base and this is why the current state of the game is what it is. When you complain they'll remove it. Now we're complaining that there's no penalty so they will add one. And in six months, we'll be right back here posting how the penalty is too harsh.
Reply Quote
10/23/2013 01:05 PMPosted by SuperDave
As I said in the other thread. I back this, cause it promotes good play.


I think what you mean is:

"As I said in the other thread. I back this, cause it promotes my style of play."

Not everyone feels the need to be punished by a video game because they don't play your way. In addition, not everyone feels that others need to be punished by a video game because they don't play your way.


Players don't want to lose their good buff...so they don't want to die...so they won't zong into mobs...good game play?
Reply Quote
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.


1. If they are suffering, it's their fault. Removing consequences for bad gaming is counter-productive.

2. Gold drops like monster dung. Plenty of it to find. If someone is running out of gold repairing, that means they are in over their heads and should kick it back a few notches.

3. Benefits like Shrines and NV are time-based. Most skill buffs and monster debuffs are time-based. You make no sense.

4. Death Penalty should make one focus more on survivability than just all out offense with a wing and a prayer. Reckless behavior should not be rewarded or even encouraged.

I do care how Death Penalty should work and it shouldn't follow any of your rules. Stop whining.
Reply Quote
10/24/2013 06:32 AMPosted by Wxmyjnsn
if you're such a sadist

Rather, masochist applies here.

A meaningful penalty give incentive to gear defensively.
HC prove that, but it's extreme, so everyone gear solely for defense.
SC should also have a meaningful penalty.

I'd like a buff for survival.
That way, you're not as much penalized for dying but rewarded for surviving.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,371
I neither need nor want someone slapping me on the wrist when I die. I am playing this game to have fun and relax, and a death penalty is completely inapposite to that purpose.

And since this game is really just a single player game where you can adventure alongside other people if you choose to or choose not to, then my dying repeatedly has zero affect on your own personal experience.

So stop trying to force me to play your way and let me keep playing the way I want to.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,371
10/23/2013 01:05 PMPosted by SuperDave
As I said in the other thread. I back this, cause it promotes good play.


I think what you mean is:

"As I said in the other thread. I back this, cause it promotes my style of play."

Not everyone feels the need to be punished by a video game because they don't play your way. In addition, not everyone feels that others need to be punished by a video game because they don't play your way.


+2 cookies.Fresh baked chocolate chip cookies :)
Reply Quote

1. If they are suffering, it's their fault. Removing consequences for bad gaming is counter-productive.

2. Gold drops like monster dung. Plenty of it to find. If someone is running out of gold repairing, that means they are in over their heads and should kick it back a few notches.

3. Benefits like Shrines and NV are time-based. Most skill buffs and monster debuffs are time-based. You make no sense.

4. Death Penalty should make one focus more on survivability than just all out offense with a wing and a prayer. Reckless behavior should not be rewarded or even encouraged.

I do care how Death Penalty should work and it shouldn't follow any of your rules. Stop whining.

1. Maybe it is their own fault. Doesn't change that it is bad game design to make people suffer endlessly. You can reach a point where being bad at a game is penalty enough, and the game doesn't have to add to it.
Much more interesting to focus on the large majority of people who aren't at the very bottom in the game.

2. Yes, gold is too common for most people to be useful as a death penalty. That was half the point.
The other half being, those few who have issues with even collecting any surplus off gold, probably doesnt need to be penalized any further.

3. Yes, and NV/Shrines/skill buffs aren't a penalty. They are rewards. Now I have argued that penalty and reward is pretty much the same. BUT:
The penalty of "not having NV" is not time based. That one is permanent until you do something that gives you NV.
Hence, the penalty isn't time based in your examples. Nor should penalties ever really be time-based.
Things usually make best sense if you don't turn them on their head.

4. Telling players to get 'back into the fight' after dying is not incentivizing reckless behavior. Just good sense.
Rather it incentivizes them to "do better" this time.
Reply Quote
This is an ARPG. If you want a death penalty go play world of warcraft.
Reply Quote
Considering the history of A-RPGs that makes little sense.
They pretty much came from a genre with perma-death as the only option.

Not that it should matter. So much focus on this forum on what previous Diablo-games or A-RPGs have done, too little focus on just making Diablo 3 good in its own right.

P.S. WoWs death penalty is quite the joke. Like D3s. And optional on top of that.
Edited by Shadout#2849 on 10/24/2013 10:05 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,961
I think what you mean is:

"As I said in the other thread. I back this, cause it promotes my style of play."

Not everyone feels the need to be punished by a video game because they don't play your way. In addition, not everyone feels that others need to be punished by a video game because they don't play your way.

Exactly.

If you want to play the game with very few deaths - then ..... do it!
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,961
10/24/2013 12:49 AMPosted by Gares
Players don't want to lose their good buff...so they don't want to die...so they won't zong into mobs...good game play?

Why would you care how those players zong into the mobs? Does it make your life miserable knowing that someone just zongs away into the mobs?
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,961
A meaningful penalty give incentive to gear defensively.
HC prove that, but it's extreme, so everyone gear solely for defense.
SC should also have a meaningful penalty.

Players that farm XP or loot will avoid death penalty because it slows them down.

Also, light death penalty allows for more experimentation for those who are not after para1000 24/7. There's no reason to force these players to gear like a tank.

In other words, it's fine, there's no need to fix what's already working.
Reply Quote
If someone are experimenting without any care for optimization, then you surely wouldnt care about a death penalty either?

A death penalty/survival bonus shouldn't hurt experimentation much at all.
Beside, it isnt like experimentation only means more deaths. You could experiment toward more survivability too.
Edited by Shadout#2849 on 10/24/2013 10:25 AM PDT
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

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.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]