With the changes coming whereby it is intended good play as well as overgearing will be possible, therefore making it more viable for undergeared players to play a higher MP the idea of a more severe death penalty goes against this.
Personally in SC I like playing on a higher MP than people would probably suggest for my gear level as I like the additional challenge, a more severe death penalty will discourage those that enjoy playing like this and just push more players into the "I must be 100% optimal at all times and never ever ever die" mentality.
There is never going to be a solution that will seem punishing enough for the very rich while not seeming overly harsh for those that play self found.
There is never going to be a solution that will seem punishing enough for the very rich while not seeming overly harsh for those that play self found.
Actually there is one : "Whenever you die your AH fees are doubled for the next hour. Can stack up to three times."
That mechanic has an expiration date
The only thing I can think of is a percentage-based punishment.
Unless you have an increasing scale, a % based punishment is still going to affect the poorer people adversely, see a progressive tax system compared to a proportionate one.
Those that have a lot won't miss it as much as those that don't, and unless it's a time base punishment, chances are those that have a lot will be able to earn it back more quickly. That applies to gold/MF/GF/xp etc.
When you die in an area like Stonefort in act 3, after you've cleared half the map, you have to walk for so long... It's just stupid. This is like the biggest punishment for me when i play and many times i just quit the run or move on to the next area. I think this is flawed design... I mean, walking for a few minutes? the most boring shit ever...
Might be just me, but i really don't see why adding salt to the wounds would do any good.
Also, about the -mf% idea, i think it's just horrible. How many times, when you are a bit undergeared, you fight a pack for a long while and you die a couple of times to them, but you eventually kill them and you expect them to drop something good for all the effort you put into this one single fight... With this idea that you lose mf precentage when dying, your drops will suck and you will never get rewarded for putting in extra effort and struggeling.
If they make paragon levels unlimited, then maybe losing experience like in D2 (but only from your plvl) is a good idea. It is punishing enough.
Off topic: they should make mobility skills have no cool down when no monsters are around and just rely on how much resource generation you have. That way, walking to where you died wouldn't be so boring, you could teleport / leap there, etc...
When you die in an area like Stonefort in act 3, after you've cleared half the map, you have to walk for so long... It's just stupid. This is like the biggest punishment for me when i play and many times i just quit the run or move on to the next area. I think this is flawed design... I mean, walking for a few minutes? the most boring shit ever...
That has more to do with sloppy level/checkpoint design than anything. In D2, if you ended up having to walk a ways back to your corpse, that was your own fault for not dropping a town portal. Since TPs don't work the same way, there are many areas that really need more frequent checkpoints, Stonefort is a great example.
I wouldn't be against adding some more penalties to death, but the above is the kind of thing they really need to fix first.
The "walking back to my spot" punishment is just a poorly designed punishment that isn't intended. It's just bad checkpoints. It's no different then how arreat crater makes you go down some long dead end path and you have to walk all the way around, but instead of being punished for death you get punished for choosing the wrong path. Any limitation in the game engine that accounts for a long stretch of mindless walking, for any reason death or otherwise, is an inept mechanic that needs to be fixed.
Find a way to get rid of that altogether and put in a real substantial death penalty that is fair and not too harsh.
(EDIT: Well I just unintentionally copied miles so I'm now an echo)
I think I may need someone to explain this thread to me because I am still not getting why people are concerned about the penalty for death.
Penalties that already exists:
1. Loss of efficiency. It's very inefficient to die, so this is already a punishment for biting off more than you can chew. Less efficient people gain XP/Gold/Items slower than people who find the right fit for their skills and gear level.
2. Repair Costs. Sure, this doesn't hurt as much as it used to before they adjusted the prices, but it is still a loss of income. People who don't realize that the MP is too high for them will continue to die and pay out more in repair bills (aka the "stupid tax").
3. Loss of time. It has already been mentioned that some zones really suck when you are trying to get back to where you died. Spending minutes running back gives the player to think, "hmm...running back sucks. Maybe I should drop an MP so this doesn't happen as often."
Personally, if I hear that someone is already getting hit with the three things above, then I don't really feel that more needs to be added to their plate.
Let's look at some example math:
Efficient Player
Experience
Total XP Gained 10,000,000
Total Runs 4
Time Per Run 15
XP/hr 10,000,000
Est. XP in 24 hours of play 240,000,000
Gold
Gold Gathered 100,000
Repair Costs 1,000 (due to wear and tear)
Net Gold Earned/Hr 99,000
Inefficient Player (dies twice per run)
Experience
Total XP Gained 10,000,000
Total Runs 4
Time Per Run 19 (2 minute run back for each death)
XP/hr 7,894,737
Est. XP in 24 hours of play 189,473,688
Obviously these numbers could change based upon the run, skill of the player, mp, etc. In this example, efficient players already gain XP ~27% faster and inefficient players are paying 39x more in repair costs than efficient players.
Looking at numbers like that make me wonder why need to to pile something else on top.
(EDIT: Well I just unintentionally copied miles so I'm now an echo)
Hey, it's good to know I'm not alone!
I think I may need someone to explain this thread to me because I am still not getting why people are concerned about the penalty for death.
It really comes down to how much people like to be punished in games for making mistakes, which is very subjective. Look at Demon Souls or even Diablo 2, and D3 is very tame by comparison. Some people feel that having more penalties associated with death is more exciting and forces you to get better, skill-wise. The point of this thread, I assume, is to discuss ways that death might be more severe without being unfair. But as you pointed out, there are already several penalties, it's just not enough for some people.
I think I may need someone to explain this thread to me because I am still not getting why people are concerned about the penalty for death.
Penalties that already exists:
1. Loss of efficiency. It's very inefficient to die, so this is already a punishment for biting off more than you can chew. Less efficient people gain XP/Gold/Items slower than people who find the right fit for their skills and gear level.
2. Repair Costs. Sure, this doesn't hurt as much as it used to before they adjusted the prices, but it is still a loss of income. People who don't realize that the MP is too high for them will continue to die and pay out more in repair bills (aka the "stupid tax").
3. Loss of time. It has already been mentioned that some zones really suck when you are trying to get back to where you died. Spending minutes running back gives the player to think, "hmm...running back sucks. Maybe I should drop an MP so this doesn't happen as often."
Personally, if I hear that someone is already getting hit with the three things above, then I don't really feel that more needs to be added to their plate.
Let's look at some example math:
Efficient Player
Experience
Total XP Gained 10,000,000
Total Runs 4
Time Per Run 15
XP/hr 10,000,000
Est. XP in 24 hours of play 240,000,000
Gold
Gold Gathered 100,000
Repair Costs 1,000 (due to wear and tear)
Net Gold Earned/Hr 99,000
Inefficient Player (dies twice per run)
Experience
Total XP Gained 10,000,000
Total Runs 4
Time Per Run 19 (2 minute run back for each death)
XP/hr 7,894,737
Est. XP in 24 hours of play 189,473,688
Obviously these numbers could change based upon the run, skill of the player, mp, etc. In this example, efficient players already gain XP ~27% faster and inefficient players are paying 39x more in repair costs than efficient players.
Looking at numbers like that make me wonder why need to to pile something else on top.
I find it quite funny that you 'judge' inefficient players under the light of "efficiency". They, by definition, don't care about that, therefore loss of "efficiency" isn't that big a punishment.
The "efficient player" and "inefficient player" categories were just headers to highlight numbers. I, personally, could always be more efficient. I was just trying to highlight the difference in gains based upon the existing death penalties. Maybe "no deaths" or "two deaths per run" would have been better titles.
In regards to the players that don't care about inefficiency because of frequent deaths, why do we need to change the game for them? They may have a play style, spec, or...something that they are enjoying and it causes them to die a lot. If they understand that is effecting their overall gains in other areas and they are okay with that, why do we need to punish them for enjoying the game in the way that they have developed on their own? I say, let them play to way they want to and we can choose not to group with them if we don't like their style.
Uhm.....you clearly don't understand the issue (but you've already said that). Try playing HC, and maybe you'll understand how a 'punishment' can make your gameplay more enjoyable. Except in this case, the punishment wouldn't be perma-death, it would be.....something else. Right now, there is no punishment, except for a so-called "loss of efficienty". Oh noes.
I really hate to say it... but if hardcore makes death more enjoyable then why wouldn't everyone who wanted that simply play hardcore?
It seems that, if I've read your post correctly, the solution is already present for those who want it.... or what am I missing?
Uhm.....you clearly don't understand the issue (but you've already said that). Try playing HC, and maybe you'll understand how a 'punishment' can make your gameplay more enjoyable. Except in this case, the punishment wouldn't be perma-death, it would be.....something else. Right now, there is no punishment, except for a so-called "loss of efficienty". Oh noes.
I really hate to say it... but if hardcore makes death more enjoyable then why wouldn't everyone who wanted that simply play hardcore?
It seems that, if I've read your post correctly, the solution is already present for those who want it.... or what am I missing?
It's an issue of balance. People want a harsher penalty for death...just not THAT harsh.
Slight tangent: has anyone else here played the Xbox360/PS3 Prince of Persia game? Because that is a perfect example of death being TOO forgiving. It was one of the reasons that game didn't do as well as the Sands of Time games.
If dying in a game doesn't offer any penalty, then you get into a pattern of throwing yourself at a puzzle or obstacle over and over without really thinking about what you are doing. The process becomes tiring and saps a lot of the fun out of the game. Penalties make the game more stessful, but force you to consider what you did wrong and how you can avoid the same result.
It's not a perfect analogy, but the principle is the same. And as I said above, it's an issue of balance. Hardcore is WAY too punishing for most people.
Slight tangent: has anyone else here played the Xbox360/PS3 Prince of Persia game? Because that is a perfect example of death being TOO forgiving. It was one of the reasons that game didn't do as well as the Sands of Time games.
If dying in a game doesn't offer any penalty, then you get into a pattern of throwing yourself at a puzzle or obstacle over and over without really thinking about what you are doing. The process becomes tiring and saps a lot of the fun out of the game. Penalties make the game more stessful, but force you to consider what you did wrong and how you can avoid the same result.
It's not a perfect analogy, but the principle is the same. And as I said above, it's an issue of balance. Hardcore is WAY too punishing for most people.
I definitely agree. I love playing my Hardcore characters, but sometimes, it's just a looooooooot of stress to deal with. I've never had a Paragon level Hardcore character before, but even the lower level Hardcores I've played, that didn't make it past level 45, were still really stressful. And that stress would often overshadow my enjoyment. So yes, I agree that balance is definitely needed, both to keep the game engaging, but at the same time, keep death from being too trivialized, ;-D
Then again, keep in mind, everyone, how players in pretty much all genres have misused "Save" features before. Used to be, many many moons ago, that you'd play a game, you had a certain amount of lives, and when you lost them all, you had to start from the beginning! :-) After a while, game companies saw this as a bit harsh...so they added "Continues." When you lost all your lives, you'd get a set number of Continues...and once those were gone, you had to start from the beginning again, until you survived long enough to reach the end.
Granted, can't do that with open ended games like Diablo necessarily, but I think that's one of the reasons "penalties", in the form of in-game setbacks, like XP loss, has been largely removed in a lot of ways from a variety of games and genres. Players got so spoiled on being able to just save their game every few feet, that if anything bad at all happened, they'd pull up their save file, and by the time the credits rolled, their records showed their character lived an absolutely perfect life with no setbacks or hardships whatsoever. Lives beget Continues, which ended up being a clunky way to immerse yourself in a game, that beget Save files, which were often abused...and now we find ourselves here, often playing games that automatically save, and force players to deal with many of their choices...but also sometimes forces the designers to keep from making mistakes too harshly punished.
But yes, balance is important. I'm a Libra, I'm all about supporting and understanding the value of balance.
I suspect the disconnect between various factions on this may come down to how players view death differently. To me, death is a failure. I don't need the game to punish me since the death is its own punishment to me. I'd still be doing my best to avoid death even if there was a reward every time you died. If there is a stiff penalty for death, then I tend to get frustrated and go find something less masochistic to do. This is why I steer clear of games like Dark Souls, for example.
If, on the other hand, death doesn't bother a player and they're perfectly content to die 25 times per hour, then I could understand potentially wanting a stiffer death penalty so that they would be "rewarded" for playing more conservatively.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
...and if you disagree with me, you're probably <insert random ad hominem attack here>.
I like what they did in Torchlight 2, you can choose how much you want to pay if you die.
That's what I was thinking about too.
It's a very interesting concept, specially for coop. Do I revive now and help my teammates or do I go back to the checkpoint and think about what I did wrong?
If you need more punishment than what’s available how about needing to loot your body? If you can't get your body back you'll have to leave game and start a new one (poof there goes stacks). The other option that seems decent is NV stacks increased but you lose X amount on death.
Debuffs make we want to AFK, long respawns want to make me AFK, losing exp make me rage quit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing Diablo since 97. I know nothing and having nothing good to say, I be a troll.
If you need more punishment than what’s available how about needing to loot your body? If you can't get your body back you'll have to leave game and start a new one (poof there goes stacks). The other option that seems decent is NV stacks increased but you lose X amount on death.
Debuffs make we want to AFK, long respawns want to make me AFK, losing exp make me rage quit.
Ok.. what if dying didn't cause a debuff but not dying gave you a buff..
So the longer you play a game session without dying you gain say 1% MF per minute with a cap of 60% MF..
If you die it resets this no dying buff back to 0%
It's an issue of balance. People want a harsher penalty for death...just not THAT harsh.
OK thanks. That's kinda what I figured I'd get for clarification... but eh, sometimes you don't know unless you ask.
Maka, I really wasn't trying to get under your skin. I was just trying to understand how hardcore was a "good example" yet "play hardcore" wasn't the answer. If it's simply that hardcore isn't for the average player (I don't really know, nor will I claim to know that) then that's cool. No harm, no foul.
I agree with Indimix here, though. After playing some Torchlight 2 I really like their "penalty for dying" system. You get to trade significant amounts of gold for convenience in rezzing. No cost makes you run all the way from town. 10% of your total gold pile makes you run from the start of the area. 30% of your total gold pile makes you rez where you died.
This system works pretty well so long as gold is desirable (crafting, vendors, etc.), which is something I hold hope for in RoS. I'm not a big fan of buffs, debuffs, NV manipulation and all that jazz. All dying has to do is make you think "I really shouldn't do that in the future" ... at least for me that's all it needs to do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Personally in SC I like playing on a higher MP than people would probably suggest for my gear level as I like the additional challenge, a more severe death penalty will discourage those that enjoy playing like this and just push more players into the "I must be 100% optimal at all times and never ever ever die" mentality.
There is never going to be a solution that will seem punishing enough for the very rich while not seeming overly harsh for those that play self found.
Unless you have an increasing scale, a % based punishment is still going to affect the poorer people adversely, see a progressive tax system compared to a proportionate one.
Those that have a lot won't miss it as much as those that don't, and unless it's a time base punishment, chances are those that have a lot will be able to earn it back more quickly. That applies to gold/MF/GF/xp etc.
A step into the right direction is better than not to move at all, in my opinion...
Might be just me, but i really don't see why adding salt to the wounds would do any good.
Also, about the -mf% idea, i think it's just horrible. How many times, when you are a bit undergeared, you fight a pack for a long while and you die a couple of times to them, but you eventually kill them and you expect them to drop something good for all the effort you put into this one single fight... With this idea that you lose mf precentage when dying, your drops will suck and you will never get rewarded for putting in extra effort and struggeling.
If they make paragon levels unlimited, then maybe losing experience like in D2 (but only from your plvl) is a good idea. It is punishing enough.
Off topic: they should make mobility skills have no cool down when no monsters are around and just rely on how much resource generation you have. That way, walking to where you died wouldn't be so boring, you could teleport / leap there, etc...
That has more to do with sloppy level/checkpoint design than anything. In D2, if you ended up having to walk a ways back to your corpse, that was your own fault for not dropping a town portal. Since TPs don't work the same way, there are many areas that really need more frequent checkpoints, Stonefort is a great example.
I wouldn't be against adding some more penalties to death, but the above is the kind of thing they really need to fix first.
Find a way to get rid of that altogether and put in a real substantial death penalty that is fair and not too harsh.
(EDIT: Well I just unintentionally copied miles so I'm now an echo)
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
Penalties that already exists:
1. Loss of efficiency. It's very inefficient to die, so this is already a punishment for biting off more than you can chew. Less efficient people gain XP/Gold/Items slower than people who find the right fit for their skills and gear level.
2. Repair Costs. Sure, this doesn't hurt as much as it used to before they adjusted the prices, but it is still a loss of income. People who don't realize that the MP is too high for them will continue to die and pay out more in repair bills (aka the "stupid tax").
3. Loss of time. It has already been mentioned that some zones really suck when you are trying to get back to where you died. Spending minutes running back gives the player to think, "hmm...running back sucks. Maybe I should drop an MP so this doesn't happen as often."
Personally, if I hear that someone is already getting hit with the three things above, then I don't really feel that more needs to be added to their plate.
Let's look at some example math:
Efficient Player
Experience
Total XP Gained 10,000,000
Total Runs 4
Time Per Run 15
XP/hr 10,000,000
Est. XP in 24 hours of play 240,000,000
Gold
Gold Gathered 100,000
Repair Costs 1,000 (due to wear and tear)
Net Gold Earned/Hr 99,000
Inefficient Player (dies twice per run)
Experience
Total XP Gained 10,000,000
Total Runs 4
Time Per Run 19 (2 minute run back for each death)
XP/hr 7,894,737
Est. XP in 24 hours of play 189,473,688
Gold
Gold Gathered 100,000
Repair Costs 40,000
Net Gold Earned/Hr 60,000
Obviously these numbers could change based upon the run, skill of the player, mp, etc. In this example, efficient players already gain XP ~27% faster and inefficient players are paying 39x more in repair costs than efficient players.
Looking at numbers like that make me wonder why need to to pile something else on top.
Hey, it's good to know I'm not alone!
It really comes down to how much people like to be punished in games for making mistakes, which is very subjective. Look at Demon Souls or even Diablo 2, and D3 is very tame by comparison. Some people feel that having more penalties associated with death is more exciting and forces you to get better, skill-wise. The point of this thread, I assume, is to discuss ways that death might be more severe without being unfair. But as you pointed out, there are already several penalties, it's just not enough for some people.
The "efficient player" and "inefficient player" categories were just headers to highlight numbers. I, personally, could always be more efficient. I was just trying to highlight the difference in gains based upon the existing death penalties. Maybe "no deaths" or "two deaths per run" would have been better titles.
In regards to the players that don't care about inefficiency because of frequent deaths, why do we need to change the game for them? They may have a play style, spec, or...something that they are enjoying and it causes them to die a lot. If they understand that is effecting their overall gains in other areas and they are okay with that, why do we need to punish them for enjoying the game in the way that they have developed on their own? I say, let them play to way they want to and we can choose not to group with them if we don't like their style.
I really hate to say it... but if hardcore makes death more enjoyable then why wouldn't everyone who wanted that simply play hardcore?
It seems that, if I've read your post correctly, the solution is already present for those who want it.... or what am I missing?
It's an issue of balance. People want a harsher penalty for death...just not THAT harsh.
If dying in a game doesn't offer any penalty, then you get into a pattern of throwing yourself at a puzzle or obstacle over and over without really thinking about what you are doing. The process becomes tiring and saps a lot of the fun out of the game. Penalties make the game more stessful, but force you to consider what you did wrong and how you can avoid the same result.
It's not a perfect analogy, but the principle is the same. And as I said above, it's an issue of balance. Hardcore is WAY too punishing for most people.
I definitely agree. I love playing my Hardcore characters, but sometimes, it's just a looooooooot of stress to deal with. I've never had a Paragon level Hardcore character before, but even the lower level Hardcores I've played, that didn't make it past level 45, were still really stressful. And that stress would often overshadow my enjoyment. So yes, I agree that balance is definitely needed, both to keep the game engaging, but at the same time, keep death from being too trivialized, ;-D
Then again, keep in mind, everyone, how players in pretty much all genres have misused "Save" features before. Used to be, many many moons ago, that you'd play a game, you had a certain amount of lives, and when you lost them all, you had to start from the beginning! :-) After a while, game companies saw this as a bit harsh...so they added "Continues." When you lost all your lives, you'd get a set number of Continues...and once those were gone, you had to start from the beginning again, until you survived long enough to reach the end.
Granted, can't do that with open ended games like Diablo necessarily, but I think that's one of the reasons "penalties", in the form of in-game setbacks, like XP loss, has been largely removed in a lot of ways from a variety of games and genres. Players got so spoiled on being able to just save their game every few feet, that if anything bad at all happened, they'd pull up their save file, and by the time the credits rolled, their records showed their character lived an absolutely perfect life with no setbacks or hardships whatsoever. Lives beget Continues, which ended up being a clunky way to immerse yourself in a game, that beget Save files, which were often abused...and now we find ourselves here, often playing games that automatically save, and force players to deal with many of their choices...but also sometimes forces the designers to keep from making mistakes too harshly punished.
But yes, balance is important. I'm a Libra, I'm all about supporting and understanding the value of balance.
If, on the other hand, death doesn't bother a player and they're perfectly content to die 25 times per hour, then I could understand potentially wanting a stiffer death penalty so that they would be "rewarded" for playing more conservatively.
It was pertinent! Look, there's a Monk in my signature now. He's always muttering about balance in his Follower banter, :-)
It's a very interesting concept, specially for coop. Do I revive now and help my teammates or do I go back to the checkpoint and think about what I did wrong?
If you need more punishment than what’s available how about needing to loot your body? If you can't get your body back you'll have to leave game and start a new one (poof there goes stacks). The other option that seems decent is NV stacks increased but you lose X amount on death.
Debuffs make we want to AFK, long respawns want to make me AFK, losing exp make me rage quit.
Ok.. what if dying didn't cause a debuff but not dying gave you a buff..
So the longer you play a game session without dying you gain say 1% MF per minute with a cap of 60% MF..
If you die it resets this no dying buff back to 0%
OK thanks. That's kinda what I figured I'd get for clarification... but eh, sometimes you don't know unless you ask.
Maka, I really wasn't trying to get under your skin. I was just trying to understand how hardcore was a "good example" yet "play hardcore" wasn't the answer. If it's simply that hardcore isn't for the average player (I don't really know, nor will I claim to know that) then that's cool. No harm, no foul.
I agree with Indimix here, though. After playing some Torchlight 2 I really like their "penalty for dying" system. You get to trade significant amounts of gold for convenience in rezzing. No cost makes you run all the way from town. 10% of your total gold pile makes you run from the start of the area. 30% of your total gold pile makes you rez where you died.
This system works pretty well so long as gold is desirable (crafting, vendors, etc.), which is something I hold hope for in RoS. I'm not a big fan of buffs, debuffs, NV manipulation and all that jazz. All dying has to do is make you think "I really shouldn't do that in the future" ... at least for me that's all it needs to do.