Penalties, death... where is it?

  • #63
    According to the blue post on the front page, they are more interested in making staying alive more desirable through bonuses rather than penalties. With NV going away, maybe they have something else in mind?

    I agree that death shouldn't be meaningless, but I'd much prefer a system that rewards you for staying alive than punishes you for dying.
  • #64

    Honestly, I don't understand how anyone could insinuate that dying is more efficient than not dying. For me that defies all logic and I sure haven't seen that as a tactic people are using in streams... so I'm not sure where that thought is coming from.


    If you die (in RoS), you can res like 3 or 5 seconds later, on the same exact spot, with (if I'm not mistaken) full life and full resource globe. Imagine you're a Monk, and you're out of spirit and very low on life (potion on CD). What's more efficient: die and res 3 or 5 seconds later, on the exact same spot, fully topped up in life and spirit; or run away, maybe wait for potion CD to run down, maybe wait for life regen to top you up (no LS), punch an enemy here and there for the spirit regen (or wait for passive regein to top you up)?
    Last edited by Maka: 12/5/2013 11:59:07 AM
  • #65

    Honestly, I don't understand how anyone could insinuate that dying is more efficient than not dying. For me that defies all logic and I sure haven't seen that as a tactic people are using in streams... so I'm not sure where that thought is coming from.

    If you die (in RoS), you can res like 3 or 5 seconds later, on the same exact spot, with (if I'm not mistaken) full life and full resource globe. Imagine you're a Monk, and you're out of spirit and very low on life (potion on CD). What's more efficient: die and res 3 or 5 seconds later, on the exact same spot, fully topped up in life and spirit; or run away, maybe wait for potion CD to run down, maybe wait for life regen to top you up (no LS), punch an enemy here and there for the spirit regen (or wait for passive regein to top you up)?
    Anyone know the reasoning behind changing from checkpoint res to corpse res?
  • #66
    It was definitely NOT like that at Blizzcon. It's possible this is another temporary beta shortcut, though I don't know if we can confirm either way without a blue post.
  • #67
    Man, the new forums ate my post. It was great, I even had a Top Gun quote in there. I can't re-create it; this is just a tribute:



    Quote from shaggy »
    If you haven't picked up on it, the forums are alight with "if you play the game differently from me you are playing it wrong" posts.


    I think it's important to remember that although a lot of forum posts come across this way, it's really just people expressing their opinions. I often write posts and then delete without posting because I realize I spent the entire time trying to prove someone's opinion is wrong, which is a waste of time. Instead, I try to talk about why it doesn't work for me, or why I don't perceive the situation in the same way.




    Quote from miles_dryden » According to the blue post on the front page, they are more interested in making staying alive more desirable through bonuses rather than penalties. With NV going away, maybe they have something else in mind?

    I agree that death shouldn't be meaningless, but I'd much prefer a system that rewards you for staying alive than punishes you for dying.
    On topic, the concept of rewarding not-dying just seems like an oxymoron to me.

    You chase after a reward; you avoid a penalty. How do you reward avoiding something? In the case of death, you have to almost die in order to avoid it. Otherwise, I could avoid death by standing around town. Technically, I'm avoiding death right now by not playing.

    Even if you're subjected to death and you avoid it, rewarding that is counter-intuitive because the better a player is, the less often he's near death. There's already a few in-game achievements for escaping with, say, 1% of your health left. It took a while to get those because I'm not in that situation very often - I hate dying and I avoid it assiduously.

    But the main thing is that rewarding not-dying instead of penalizing dying makes dying an option. As I said above, you chase rewards, which means that you can choose not to chase them if you like. No matter how good the reward is, if there's no penalty the player can always say, "Eh, I'll just die." That just makes no sense to me.

    That's why it needs to be a penalty - and only a penalty - so that choosing not to act costs the player something. And as a corollary, getting a reward for not-dying is like getting a participation medal in one of those soccer games they make kids play that don't keep score.
    Last edited by daisychopper: 12/5/2013 12:56:36 PM
  • #68

    If you die (in RoS), you can res like 3 or 5 seconds later, on the same exact spot, with (if I'm not mistaken) full life and full resource globe. Imagine you're a Monk, and you're out of spirit and very low on life (potion on CD). What's more efficient: die and res 3 or 5 seconds later, on the exact same spot, fully topped up in life and spirit; or run away, maybe wait for potion CD to run down, maybe wait for life regen to top you up (no LS), punch an enemy here and there for the spirit regen (or wait for passive regein to top you up)?
    OK good... finally an example! Kudos to you for actually citing a problem... because then we can actually discuss that. Honestly, from Fitsu I had this thought that people were going around, doing 25% damage to a monster, then dying.... because it was more "efficient" and that seemed wholly insane to me, and an obviously-stupid way to play the game.

    What you're talking about, yes. 3-5 seconds for full health and full resources is somewhat-exploitive. Why not simply make it 50% health and 50% resources on rez? 35%? Would that "fix" the problem? I know that's basically what happens in WoW if you're rezzed in-combat, or even if you go "get your corpse" and the main reason is to prevent people from dying to get their resources back via rez.
    66.0k elite kills :: 1.97m total kills :: p244
    Planet Express <PlanEx>
    (V) (°,,°) (V)
  • #69

    If you die (in RoS), you can res like 3 or 5 seconds later, on the same exact spot, with (if I'm not mistaken) full life and full resource globe. Imagine you're a Monk, and you're out of spirit and very low on life (potion on CD). What's more efficient: die and res 3 or 5 seconds later, on the exact same spot, fully topped up in life and spirit; or run away, maybe wait for potion CD to run down, maybe wait for life regen to top you up (no LS), punch an enemy here and there for the spirit regen (or wait for passive regein to top you up)?
    OK good... finally an example! Kudos to you for actually citing a problem... because then we can actually discuss that. Honestly, from Fitsu I had this thought that people were going around, doing 25% damage to a monster, then dying.... because it was more "efficient" and that seemed wholly insane to me, and an obviously-stupid way to play the game.

    What you're talking about, yes. 3-5 seconds for full health and full resources is somewhat-exploitive. Why not simply make it 50% health and 50% resources on rez? 35%? Would that "fix" the problem? I know that's basically what happens in WoW if you're rezzed in-combat, or even if you go "get your corpse" and the main reason is to prevent people from dying to get their resources back via rez.
    Just found this video. Rez at corpse is 100% health and resource, and you can move away to re-position yourself. (http://youtu.be/mZB7Ub5GOHs)

    I hope its just for testing or they do what you said and lower it to something like 35% of health and resource
  • #70
    Getting a look at it now in that video, "Revive at corpse" definitely feels like a button added for testing.
    Last edited by eman41: 12/5/2013 3:10:07 PM
  • #71
    I play SC I wont pretend like I am some uber hardcore gamer but I don't think that the old D2 model works when you have paragon leveling split between 10 characters the old penalty of increasing res timers was good but ended up feeling frustrating if you got a bad set of affixes and got thrashed in a split second by a pack where you had been plowing through everything else before that. In D2 you had significantly simpler affixes that couldn't potentially instagib you multiple times like a vortex, fire chains, extra fast, jailer can, if you dies once you knew what the fucking affix that killed you was and there was a strategy that could let you fight it and get your corpse, what are you going to do when you get vortexed away from your corpse or the second you get your corpse you get jailed in a desecrate? I am all for punishing death or rewarding survival but tossing the "why not do as we used to" answer seems like a significant lack of actual critical thought being put into a solution. The reason I think survival bonuses are better is because you can potentially lose your bonus but subsequent cases of getting instagibbed or thrashed by a specific set of affixes is not going to plunge you into a state where you have lost hours and hours of work on your character(which with new shared paragon is all of your characters) just because a specific set of affixes has you vexed.

    Have the new survival bonus follow the old NV rules, no skill swapping etc, it challenges you to find a build that is versatile and works for more than one situation. Keep in mind that many of the things like LL and CM perma-WotB etc are going bye bye come expansion time so what seems like a faceroll now might have you thinking differently when you have a chance to play it, also remember that everything you see in streams is still being tuned and maybe you will be happy with torment VI when you get to try it.

    On the note of people raging against the "instant gratification age" Blizzard is a successful gaming company, unless you are the head of a major marketing firm with the numbers in front of you to say otherwise please assume you know nothing about what their statistics on players say about who is doing what and what is the appropriate level of punishment. Blizzard very often cites numbers about the percentage of people completing certain content as a means to show that the population asking for punishment or increase in difficulty is not as big as it thinks itself to be(yes I am personifying the top 1% of gamers as a group that thinks its more like 75%). That being said if NV came back as a reward for staying alive I think it would work well if it were tweaked a bit to be less of a boost per stack but had a higher stack total.
    Last edited by Avenknight: 12/5/2013 11:31:09 PM
  • #72
    I think the easiest thing Blizzard could do is leave the NV system in place, except if you die you lose a stack. If you die and you have no stacks you do not lose one and go into some kind of negative NV stack count.
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes