Diablo® III

Survival Bonuses should be in D3

12/02/2013 04:46 AMPosted by WDrSharkon
I still go back to my original point: no matter whether it's punishing death or rewarding survival, the result is the same: discouraging risk taking. So what's the benefit of making death suck more that outweighs this?


This thread's on its third page and I still haven't gotten an answer for this. :/
Reply Quote
12/02/2013 01:34 PMPosted by WDrSharkon
I still go back to my original point: no matter whether it's punishing death or rewarding survival, the result is the same: discouraging risk taking. So what's the benefit of making death suck more that outweighs this?


This thread's on its third page and I still haven't gotten an answer for this. :/


That's probably because your question is worded in a way that makes it hard to understand. If you would like to reword the question into something comprehensible, I will provide the best answer possible.
Reply Quote
That's probably because your question is worded in a way that makes it hard to understand. If you would like to reword the question into something comprehensible, I will provide the best answer possible.


Alright, let me give it a shot.

Rewarding survival and punishing death are, functionally, the same thing in all regards except psychological, and serve the same purpose: to make dying suck more. The more dying sucks, the fewer risks players are going to be willing to take. Risks like pushing what monster power I can handle, trying to take down elites with really nasty affix combos, experimenting with new builds, playing unusual and possibly non-ideal builds, and even just playing the game at all when I'm not at 100% irl. The more dying sucks, the less willing players will be to play harder content and use anything but the theorycrafted best builds.

With that in mind, what benefit does making dying suck more bring to outweigh the drop in risk taking it will cause?
Reply Quote
12/02/2013 01:50 PMPosted by WDrSharkon
With that in mind, what benefit does making dying suck more bring to outweigh the drop in risk taking it will cause?


Simply making the rewards for taking risks higher than the rewards for 'playing it safe' ... there should be a good balance between the two. At the moment, there is no reward for not taking risks other than saving a pittance of gold in repairs. All the reward is currently in risk-taking, which is why we see everyone in mp8+ running glass cannon builds.

The developers have stated plenty of times they would like to see this culture change, but they continue to make the rewards most beneficial to this culture.

As far as testing out different builds, this can be done experimentally on a lower difficulty to see if it is feasible, or a player can change builds after their survival bonus has been reset. I understand that finding gear that would benefit a different build approach would and should make a player experiment, but finding the right place and right time to make those changes should be part of the challenge.

When using terms like 'best build', I would have to say that there should be no such thing as a 'best build'. Skill and rune balancing and gear balancing needs a lot of work. Even now, I use less efficient, more enjoyment builds to play D3 Vanilla and the benefit of gameplay longevity has been more appealing than the increased chance for unappealing loot to drop.

I hope this answers all of your points. If not, please elaborate.
Reply Quote
Indeed. I never understand the argument that people will just go back to farming MP1 (or RoS equivialent). That is so simple to fix by buffing rewards from higher difficulties until people feel they are worth running.

Cant really judge if something is worth running early on though.
If everyone only ran MP1 for the first month in RoS that hardly means everything beyond is not worth it, but could just mean people haven't geared up enough.

If everyone kept running MP1, then yeah, better rewards from higher MP would be needed, just like MPs got buffed in vanilla.
Reply Quote
12/02/2013 02:15 PMPosted by MadMyke
Simply making the rewards for taking risks higher than the rewards for 'playing it safe' ... there should be a good balance between the two.


Frankly, I think that balance would be such a razor's edge as to be unrealistic to try and achieve. Especially if these bonuses carry over between different play sessions. If bonuses carry over, eventually safe players will max theirs, while risk takers will be living in a constant state of starting over.

12/02/2013 02:15 PMPosted by MadMyke
At the moment, there is no reward for not taking risks other than saving a pittance of gold in repairs.


The main deterrent for dying isn't gold, it's time. Dying against a boss means having to start the fight over from scratch. Dying against an elite means having to run up to an entire map to get back to what you were doing. Dying too many times means wasting time going back to town to repair. On top of which, dying is a hit to a player's ego, even when playing solo. I just don't think there's any real need to further incentivize staying alive.

12/02/2013 02:15 PMPosted by MadMyke
All the reward is currently in risk-taking, which is why we see everyone in mp8+ running glass cannon builds.

The developers have stated plenty of times they would like to see this culture change, but they continue to make the rewards most beneficial to this culture.


I don't think a reward/punishment system would lead to this changing, though. At least not on the scale they want. I think it would just lead to players continuing to play glass cannons on lower MP levels. I don't think most people play glass cannons because the rewards are greater, I think they play them just because they find that playstyle more fun. Death penalties/survival rewards may lead some players to switching to tankier builds, but I don't think it's the best method to achieve this.
Reply Quote
12/02/2013 03:05 PMPosted by WDrSharkon
Frankly, I think that balance would be such a razor's edge as to be unrealistic to try and achieve. Especially if these bonuses carry over between different play sessions. If bonuses carry over, eventually safe players will max theirs, while risk takers will be living in a constant state of starting over.


And the good players will be surviving well and building a survival bonus on higher difficulties. Of course some people will want to play it safe, but it will just hurt them in the long run.

12/02/2013 03:05 PMPosted by WDrSharkon
The main deterrent for dying isn't gold, it's time. Dying against a boss means having to start the fight over from scratch. Dying against an elite means having to run up to an entire map to get back to what you were doing. Dying too many times means wasting time going back to town to repair. On top of which, dying is a hit to a player's ego, even when playing solo. I just don't think there's any real need to further incentivize staying alive.


Right now, that time spent is nothing compared to the increased clear time for running glass cannon builds, so it negates any perceived time penalty. And nobody farms bosses in D3.

And it doesn't hurt a player's ego. I ran MP8 VotA with a 260k DPS WW Barb who cleared whites very fast, then died about 6 times on a single champion fight. I tanked them and eventually killed them pretty much by myself. He then continued to insult me and brag that he might die a lot but at least he has 260k DPS.

12/02/2013 03:05 PMPosted by WDrSharkon
I don't think a reward/punishment system would lead to this changing, though. At least not on the scale they want. I think it would just lead to players continuing to play glass cannons on lower MP levels. I don't think most people play glass cannons because the rewards are greater, I think they play them just because they find that playstyle more fun. Death penalties/survival rewards may lead some players to switching to tankier builds, but I don't think it's the best method to achieve this.


I would have to kindly disagree. I have plenty of friends who play glass cannon builds and say they wish there was some kind of incentive in D3 to play more sustainably. The only way in D3 to have a high mp player with good kill speed and survivablitiy is to spend 100s of millions to billions of gold in the AH.

If you gear glass cannon, you can run high mps for more item drops and faster xp gain. If you run with more survivability, you have a lower rate of item drops and xp gain. That's what I am trying to address. To say the issue is something other than an unbalanced reward system seems highly unlikely.

So, if you believe a survival bonus is not a good incentive to add variety in the glass cannon dps culture, what do you think is a good solution?
Edited by MadMyke#1785 on 12/2/2013 3:45 PM PST
Reply Quote
12/02/2013 03:05 PMPosted by WDrSharkon
Frankly, I think that balance would be such a razor's edge as to be unrealistic to try and achieve. Especially if these bonuses carry over between different play sessions. If bonuses carry over, eventually safe players will max theirs, while risk takers will be living in a constant state of starting over.

Some things are hard to balance for sure, like the current hot topic; trading vs self-found. Probably impossible to balance.

But something like creating an incentive for risking higher MP, even if it leads to deaths. That should not be too hard.
Since you do not have to make all MPs equal, balance will to some degree be self-adjusting here, with players pushing themselves toward higher risks to see if they can succeed - the game only need to be ready to reward them if they do.
Not a problem if MP10 is a lot better than MP1 for people who rarely die for example. Big risk, big reward.
Not a problem if MP5 is better than MP10 for people who would die a lot in MP10. While being worse than playing MP10 and rarely dying of course.
Might not get the balance right in the first try, but such an (relatively speaking) easy thing to adjust with small changes to MF and XP bonuses.
Reply Quote
And the good players will be surviving well and building a survival bonus on higher difficulties. Of course some people will want to play it safe, but it will just hurt them in the long run.


But that's already accomplished by MP levels. Playing it safe at lower MPs grants lower MF bonuses, while playing at higher ones grants larger bonuses. Adding survival bonuses to the mix actually encourages lower MP play because the survival bonuses will make up the difference between the lower and higher MP levels for those playing it safe, while the players in higher MP levels will be dying more frequently (i.e., at all) and losing their bonuses, thereby neutralizing the advantage of playing the higher MP.

Note that I'm using "lower" and "higher" here relatively. To an uber-geared player, for example, MP7 or 8 would be the low, safe MP.

12/02/2013 03:44 PMPosted by MadMyke
He then continued to insult me and brag that he might die a lot but at least he has 260k DPS.


Sounds like trying to cover up a damaged ego to me. :P

12/02/2013 03:44 PMPosted by MadMyke
So, if you believe a survival bonus is not a good incentive to add variety in the glass cannon dps culture, what do you think is a good solution?


Well, that's a tough one. The trick is to encourage tankiness without actively forcing it over other playstyles. Maybe something like a talent that increases MF or exp based on survivability stats, like +X% MF per Y armor or Z dodge or something. This evens out the efficiency difference, since it means tanks getting more drops per enemy while glass cannons get more kills per minute.

Or every time a player is killed while in combat with an elite they lose X% MF (stacking) against that specific elite. That's a death penalty, but it's a more focused one that makes dying consistently against the same enemy punishing without turning death into a blanket punishment over an entire game.
Reply Quote
Adding survival bonuses to the mix actually encourages lower MP play because the survival bonuses will make up the difference between the lower and higher MP levels for those playing it safe, while the players in higher MP levels will be dying more frequently (i.e., at all) and losing their bonuses, thereby neutralizing the advantage of playing the higher MP.

Note that I'm using "lower" and "higher" here relatively. To an uber-geared player, for example, MP7 or 8 would be the low, safe MP.

Only if you cant succeed at playing risky.
It will greatly reward those who can play risky, with sub-par gear on high MP, and are good enough to stay alive for example.
Which only sounds like a good thing imo.
Sure, you can also play it safe, just like you can today, but as long as you are rewarded for playing risky, while succeeding at your risky play of course, why is it a problem?

Sounds much more fun in the long run than "throw yourself at higher MP no matter what".
Especially if we could get MPs high enough that you could not really get enough gear to ever play it safe. Being able to outgear challenge is a problem on its own.
Edited by Shadout#2849 on 12/2/2013 4:50 PM PST
Reply Quote
12/02/2013 04:16 PMPosted by WDrSharkon
Adding survival bonuses to the mix actually encourages lower MP play because the survival bonuses will make up the difference between the lower and higher MP levels for those playing it safe


This won't be a factor in RoS as the bonuses for higher difficulties are much more dramatic than the bonuses for higher mp levels we see today. You should check out the magic find and legendary magic find tables being implemented in RoS.

12/02/2013 04:16 PMPosted by WDrSharkon
Or every time a player is killed while in combat with an elite they lose X% MF (stacking) against that specific elite.


I agree with this idea, but most people skip elites as is because the benefits of killing white mobs rapidly is higher than spending the time to take down elites. Maybe they could rework the drop rates so killing 1000s of normal monsters and ignoring elites isn't an efficient way to farm.

12/02/2013 04:16 PMPosted by WDrSharkon
Sounds like trying to cover up a damaged ego to me. :P


It's possible. But his ego was only hurt because he encountered a well geared, decent DPS tank. In a party of all glass cannon, he feels much more justified in his erratic behavior.
Reply Quote
12/02/2013 04:28 PMPosted by Shadout
Sure, you can also play it safe, just like you can today


Bots run low mp, collect UNID legendaries and sell them in bulk. And that is more lucrative than playing the game on a higher mp level. The current magic find and gold find bonuses gained from paragon levels is why bots are able to do this and it seems that could be a factor in the redesign Blizzard is doing on the reward vs difficulty scale.

In this thread, I would like to look at things from an RoS standpoint instead of a Vanilla D3 standpoint. There are a lot of things changing and basing assumptions on current D3 mechanics will only lead to an inaccurate portrayal of how things will play out in RoS and its pre-launch patch.
Reply Quote
12/02/2013 04:28 PMPosted by Shadout
Especially if we could get MPs high enough that you could not really get enough gear to ever play it save. Being able to outgear challenge is a problem on its own.


I couldn't agree more. If anything can effectively kill the endgame, outgearing the game takes the cake in my opinion. How many threads have been posted titled 'MP10 is too easy, I quit'?
Reply Quote
Bots run low mp, collect UNID legendaries and sell them in bulk. And that is more lucrative than playing the game on a higher mp level.

Luckily we are gettting BoA. So I dont particularly care what bots are doing or not doing.
Other than I (naively) hope Blizzard bans every one of them of course.
Reply Quote
12/02/2013 04:44 PMPosted by Shadout
Bots run low mp, collect UNID legendaries and sell them in bulk. And that is more lucrative than playing the game on a higher mp level.

Luckily we are gettting BoA. So I dont particularly care what bots are doing or not doing.
Other than I (naively) hope Blizzard bans every one of them of course.


With the way RoS is being set up, the only reason people would bot is to collect mundane gear and some gold for the artisans. Sure, people will still bot, but it won't be nearly as lucrative as it currently is.
Reply Quote
Buddy of mine and I were discussing this a while back.

"Survival! .7% Health!" 200 XP Gained.

Who cares. 200 XP. Big freaking whoop.

How about a PERMANENT BONUS? It doesn't have to be much. Just SOMETHING. Add a tiny percentage to armor rating or something. Or a 2 minute protection aura or something.

It isn't like "Survival" happens very often. Its rare. Usually if you're that low, at least in inferno, you're dead.

What about Savior? This does absolutely nothing except a tiny piece of xp.

Lots of things don't give real bonuses. This has been one of the most pointless and weak aspects of the game.
Reply Quote
Blizzard Employee
Posts: 2,279
I overheard a developer once say that they like the idea of a survival bonus more than a death penalty. We don't currently have a plan to implement a survival bonus or change the death penalty, but what kind of survival bonus would you implement? How strong should a survival bonus be?
Reply Quote
Posts: 16,809
12/02/2013 05:48 PMPosted by Grimiku
I overheard a developer once say that they like the idea of a survival bonus more than a death penalty. We don't currently have a plan to implement a survival bonus or change the death penalty, but what kind of survival bonus would you implement? How strong should a survival bonus be?


How about commutative reward for doing bounties and Rifts (and side quests). Every time you complete one of those, you get "5% more" (if you complete 2, it's 10%, etc).

1 stack is lost upon death.
Edited by DoomBringer#1994 on 12/2/2013 5:56 PM PST
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)

Reported!

[Close]