As for those who wants death reduce the experience points, why don't you just suggest something like you need 30 seconds~1 minute to respawn and those timers are accumulative if you kept dying. If you look at different perspective, it is same as losing experience as you didn't earn any experience because you are waiting to respawn.
For the reasons I mentioned, it is absolutely not the same. One lets you continue playing immediately and enjoying the game.
The other deprives you of enjoying the game by simply forbidding you to play the game.
They really can't be more apart than this.
And because one of them is really bad, doesn't imply in any way that an other would be.
Losing experience on death seems like a huge step backwards to me. I can't even begin to tell you how many times I have died on my way to my current paragon 63 ( not even half way).
Just how much experience would we lose ? How much longer would it take to get to paragon level 100 ? Or 1000 when the expansion is released. I bet if you asked someone who went from level 73 to 100 most would say they have died more times than they can remember.
In my opinion a harsh death penalty might discourage exploration/experimentation with new builds and equipment.
The "classic" (d2 style) idea would be, a percentage of your current XP bar : ie, if you're Paragon 63, the xp needed to go to P64 is X million exp. Every time you die, you'd lose 5% of X (for example), while never going under the floor of P63.
I think d2 was 10%, but that was indeed a lot, especially in a D3 environment where the skill system encourages you to test new builds (which was not possible in D2).
You could also have an XP cap to the loss inflicted : ie, not more than half an hour worth of leveling.
A death penalty sounds like a pretty bad idea to me. My favorite class to play is the Demon Hunter. I think it's fairly common knowledge that Demon Hunters die way more frequently than most other classes. Also, I play on a somewhat dated laptop computer with a spotty internet connection. I play very well and am fantastic at surviving, but sometimes there is literally nothing I can do to avoid death. If they implemented a death penalty, I would stop playing the class I have the most fun with just out of frustration.
To be fair, if this is as you're describing it, then that sounds more like a problem of class design. I have not played the DH, but if you say there is literally nothing you can do to avoid death, then :
- either you should gear /skill less agressively and more defensively (you probably tried already), or reduce the MP setting
- or, if you have already *seriously* (emphasis on seriously) tried and that's simply not really helping (ie you're still suffering *unavoidable* deaths), then it means there is a problem with the class design.
Which if there indeed is, would of course be a problem that should be fixed, but the solution would not to forcing other game mechanics (death) to adapt to it. So, I wish you they'd fix the DH if it needs to, but that problem shouldn't interfere with the death mechanic :)
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.
I think you're globally spot-on. The only point where I might disapprove is your gold loss example. You have to keep in mind it's possible to make it a penalty without making it a problem.
First, it can (and certainly would anyway) be proportional to your current gold amount. So the less you have, the less it would impact you.
Second, nothing prevents the mechanic having caps / safeguards (that is something that internet forum posters often just don't consider can exist no matter what they're advocating against). For example, if you have less than "a certain value" of gold, the loss is not applied. Or if you have more than "another certain value", it is capped.
Now, of course it would only make sense if gold is still valuable, and valuable in large quantities, which today is not the case once you remove the AH. I mean, there is just nothing in the game that costs more than maybe 1 or 2 million (some recipes), so there would be no reason to stack up gold more than this, so players would just use it as quick as they could (enchanting or whatever) to avaoid paying higher death penalties. Which is not good either, as you dont want to have players starting to adapt their non-combat related (gearing, skilling, combating) activities to it as it just turns negates the penalty and replaces it with an everyday chore (which obviously is bad game design).