What happens when you die?

[MoUsE_WiZ]

inDiablo.de: When a character dies, will it lose gold and experience like in Diablo 2?
Jay Wilson: We have not actually decided on the final death mechanic. I can guarantee that you will not lose experience. We are not urging to big penaltys for death. But we want enough of a penalty to be there, so that death has meaning! Like to lose a little bit time, some kind of decrement... We do not currently have a durability, but some kind of ... a gold cost is actually not so bad. And having the player to waste some time, that is certainly an element. Generally we kind of rely on the effect that players do not want to die. You know, you just do not want to. So there is no real reason to add a further "ding" to them for something happening that was already unfavorable to them. But we have not got our final mechanics on that, yet.




Shows what they know =(
I hope this attitude doesn't prevent funmode from being in the game ~_~

[ThulRasha]

Definately no experience loss, and he wants people to waste a little time.
That is a bit contracdicting. The only penalty for experience loss is that you have to waste time. (assuming xp loss can't de-level you).
On the other hand, if there will be a different element to waste time after death, then it is of course the same thing as experience loss.

Not that it matters much, as long as there is the hardcore mode. Lets hope that will still make it in.

[Akse]

I played a MUD where if you died you lost a huge load of exp.. but you were sent to a nether world of some kind where you had to sense your souls good and evil.. once you found both and merged with them you were sent back to the world with a lot less exp lost. I think this kind of penalty would be cool, it would take some time or if you don't care the exp loss you could get back fast.

I read and review about AoC where there is no death penalty at all and people "abuse" it a lot. They don't even try to survive if a tricky situation comes ahead they can just die and start again with full hp with just a little time spent on retrieveing the corpse.

[ThulRasha]

I read and review about AoC where there is no death penalty at all and people "abuse" it a lot. They don't even try to survive if a tricky situation comes ahead they can just die and start again with full hp with just a little time spent on retrieveing the corpse.

And people are now worried that Diablo3 will do the same. Only time lost of getting back to where you died.

Ah well, as long as there is a permanent death option it really should not matter much.

[CaptainDingo]

I hate the very principle of death and the insinuation that my character is weak. I know that's not a huge deterrent to everyone, but it is to me. They could have no death penalty except a brisk walk and I'd still avoid dying like the plague.

[Swordslash]

I'm getting a very WoW vibe from all of this... :yuck:

[Akse]

The exp loss is already too small. No one under 90 level doesn't really care if they die a couple of times in softcore.. you see people dying in softcore in almost every game.

[CaptainDingo]

Experience loss isn't a fair punishment for a mistake. Not unless the experience you lost from the death penalty can be regained by getting "revenge" on the specific monster or group of monsters that killed you.

Because when I die, it is a mistake, as much as hardcore players like to think softcore players throw themselves at danger and don't care about death, I personally do not do that. And I don't want to lose a huge wad of experience unless it can be gotten back from some sort of monster revenge type system.

[elponeis]

I think it will be the same. It's already fair in softcore losing some exp and piles of gold, as you lose time to get your corpse, lose time to exp again, lose money you could give a better use. As long as you don't de-level, it's fine.

[phool]

Which time penalty is better:
1) having to walk back to your corpse; or
2) having to actually play the game to regain lost xp?

No brainer, right? 1 is a pointless, tedious barrier to playing, the other is doing something you enjoy.

I'd have to make assumption on how gold operates in D3 to really go into detail but a gold penalty seems a really bad idea, indeed I've argued elsewhere that gold loss on death (certainly where gold lost is based on carried gold at any rate) should be removed as an auxiliary step in making gold an effective currency. I'll just point out here regularly muling gold is an easy but not enjoyable way of preventing this being a penalty at all.

It's pretty amusing how in a many ways D3 appears to diverging from D2 in many of the very areas D2 clones correspond most closely from D2 on, from xp penalty on death to no more TPs.

I don't think any of this suggests anything about HC though.

[stillman]

Very true about the gold muling. If fact, you can just drop it on the ground if you anticipate a risky boss fight.

Maybe something more than a slap on the wrist would be interesting...like you lose a random item!

[fatwisconsinguy]

By wasting time, I think they could be talking about something similar to resurrection sickness in WoW. For instance if you die you will lose a % of health, damage, etc for a certain amount of time.
But I also think this thread doesn't belong here because when I die I'll turn into a ghost that can't play anymore anyways :-D

[Frostraven]

Death penalty:
Roll a new character at level 1 and block the name on the old character for 2 weeks.

Why else would they call it "Death"?

Death -- The absense of will, emotion, senses and thought in a previously living subject.

Why would they need an "permanent and irreversible absense of will, emotion, senses and thought penalty" at all -- isn't DEATH enough for these guys; they just HAVE to take a piss on the dead character's grave as well?

Oh.
They don't mean "death", in the common sense.
Do they mean... er... "relocation and temporary loss of tools for effective monster killing, skill improvement and movement rate changes", like diablo II softcore pre-level 83?

And do they suggest that what they previously refered to as "permanent and irreversible absense of will, emotion, senses and thought penalty penalty" in reality MAY be "economical sanctions and physical relocation penalty (for letting the red bulb go empty)"?

...
Hey -- I'm only calling a spade a spade here.
Death sounds cooler than "economical sanctions and physical relocation" -- but then again... wouldn't it really be better to just avoid letting softcore characters "die" in the first place, when they never actually experience a "permanent and irreversible absense of will, emotion, senses and thought"?

Logical approaches:
-The character is summoned back to town by a mystical force an instant before death.
-The character has a safety mechanism that teleports him to town if he would be killed.

Doesn't sound serious enough?
Sounds silly?
Because a reversing a permanent and irreversible lack of life in a character located in the middle of the demon hordes, who would maul the character's corpse and steal his gear, calling that lack of death... a death... isn't silly, right?

But then again.
Calling "Monetary sanctions and physical relocation" a "permanent and irreversible absense of will, emotion, senses and thought" may be a hit with the crowds, who've never died before and appearantly don't know what death is anymore, thanks to modern games.

"Mommy, how long till granny respawns?"
"She's got no more lives, son, so she's respawned in heaven by now."
"No more lives -- she only had one?!"
"Yea -- You know how those in the oldest gaming generation often only had one life"
...

Seriously though.
I just HAD to poke fun of the very concept of a "death penalty" for the character that actually just died.
Rant over.

I ment the part about returning to town automaticly before dying in softcore though -- just to avoid the sillyness of a death penalty.
Call it defeat penalty.
A fee or price you have to pay for your mistakes in order to get pulled out of battle the next time you get hit in the head with an axe twice your weight, repeatedly.

As mentioned by others... if gold is supposed to have ANY value... it needs to stay relatively safe.
Random near death penalty suggestions:
-2 to all skills for 5 minutes.
-10 to all attributes for 5 minutes.
-50% to experience gained for 5 minutes. (Tricky one. Exactly the same as removing exp -- only passively).
Relocation to town, far away from combat. Really far. 2-5 minutes to run far.
The monsters laugh at you when you come back. Heck. Let all monsters respawn and give no exp the second time around!
Force the character to run to town and get healed up and run back into the fray.

Hey. I like the last one.

Transform the character to a bird and force him to fly to town where he has to buy healing or wait for natural healing.

[Gigashadow]

I don't really welcome death penalties in games that do not have the save load function. And if anyone likes being punished for death, that's what Hardcore is for.

[MoUsE_WiZ]

"economical sanctions and physical relocation penalty

XD

that's what Hardcore is for.
That's the point of the thread.
Hardcore has yet to be made official, and idiot face designers are going on about how the fact that you've experienced a physical relocation, and possibly economical sanctions, should be enough to prevent you from wanting to let the red bulb go empty. So hopefully that's what hardcore is for, but we still don't know that.

[TheDarkSide]

hopefully you'll see a message something along the lines of

" You Have Died - Your Deeds of Valor Will Be Remembered "

END of the Game for you , you lose all items , all gold , and here's an idea - you start all over in town at level 1 cursing to yourself that you'll never fall for X that happened to you again ...


well we can wish cant we ???

[Gigashadow]

That's the point of the thread.The quote mentioned talks only about Softcore, and thus I am talking about Softcore (and why is this in HC forum anyway, but w/e).

Hardcore has yet to be made officialI believe it was made official or near-official at the Blizzcon panel. Hardcore gamers and SC gamers usually aren't mixed, but the standard game format is Softcore, obviously, so the developers are looking at that one mostly.

and idiot face designersI believe that's flame towards developers, you need to refrain from that. Sounds really ignorant. Especially considering that you can't spell. "face" designers?

are going on about how the fact that you've experienced a physical location, and possibly economical sanctions, should be enough to prevent you from wanting to let the red bulb go empty.I am not sure I'm seeing your point here. For every person it's different whether or not do they want to see the red bulb go to empty depending on the conditions... I don't like dying even if there is no punishment for it, I just don't. Some people don't care even if there are penalties. I only care about myself, and I know that if I am playing SC I want to assume that I'll die somewhere and I don't want to get punished for it, because DII is the only game I know that punishes for dying in SP. Punishment by experience is utterly ridiculous.

[MoUsE_WiZ]

(and why is this in HC forum anyway, but w/e)
Because HC has yet to be confirmed, and the devs, Jay Wilson in particular, is going around saying things like death penalties not being that important. Yes, we're aware that IF there is an HC it will have its own seperate system of penalties. However if Jay Wilson doesn't think penalties are that important, and has twice refused to actually confirm HC is in the game, it is a cause for concern.

By the way, why are you in this forum?

I believe it was made official or near-official at the Blizzcon panel
When asked about HC Jay Wilson gave his usual, "We haven't worked on it yet, but I can't imagine any reason we wouldn't put it in."
So no. It's no more confirmed than it was at WWI.
Yes it's probably there, no it's not there.

I believe that's flame towards developers, you need to refrain from that. Sounds really ignorant. Especially considering that you can't spell. "face" designers?
Would you then propose I spell "idiot face designers" with an "s" in place of the "c"?
Or are you actually not complaining about spelling at all?

I am not sure I'm seeing your point here.
It's the worry that since HC isn't confirmed, and the idiot fases don't believe a penalty for death is that important, that maybe putting in a mode with a penalty for death isn't really a priority. Especially due to the SC:HC player ratios... Blizzard has proven they really don't care about the minority wants in their games over the years. But hey, they're making money off of appealing to the lowest common denominator, so whatever.

[Gigashadow]

Because HC has yet to be confirmed...lol For them not to include HC would be really weird. Let me tell you this:

NOTHING is confirmed so lets start doubting the whole entire game and saying nothing is confirmed because you are not 100% sure. Guess what, maybe even DIII won't come out because that's not confirmed, either.

Jay Wilson in particular, is going around saying things like death penalties not being that important.And he's obviously talking about the main game, which is not HC. HC is a special case, in all situations.

By the way, why are you in this forum?Same reason everyone else is in this forum?

Would you then propose I spell "idiot face designers" with an "s" in place of the "c"?Wait, "idiot face designers" has a meaning? I thought you did a totally crazy mistake somewhere but intended to say something like "game" designers, because the word "face" in there doesn't really mean anything at all. The designers of faces? Or what?

In addition to that, you put "physical location", probably meaning "physical allocation". In any case, that didn't make any sense, either.

It's the worry that since HC isn't confirmed, and the idiot fases don't believe a penalty for death is that important, that maybe putting in a mode with a penalty for death isn't really a priority.How about you start earning more money than them before you call them idiots, OK? Or find some other insult. One which makes more sense.

Your worry about HC being confirmed is the same as anyone's worry that DIII will not come out. There are no grounds for it. Just because they didn't say aloud that it won't be there doesn't mean they are not adding it, and them discussing the game's qualities only proves that they divide players into the categories, but the HC category is pretty small, so why would they discuss that.

Blizzard has proven they really don't care about the minority wants in their games over the years.That sentence, again, doesn't make any sense.

[MoUsE_WiZ]

"lol For them not to include HC would be really weird."

They didn't include HC in WoW when many thought they would. Many thought that hostility would be in the game in at least some form, as many consider that to be just as key an aspect as HC. The fact that they admit they haven't given any particular thought to it is a bad thing. Hardcore is the sort of thing that should be considered when conceptualizing gameplay and balance, otherwise enabling such a mode can come out rather pointless... eg consider how pointless having HC in WoW would be.

So I have no doubts they'll eventually come to a point where they try it out with an HC mode to see how it plays, but if they decide it plays poorly, I would not be shocked at all to see it not make the final cut.

"NOTHING is confirmed"

Not even the existence of the concept of existence is ever really confirmed. However, the probability of something making the game is much higher when the devs say it's in the game vs when they say they haven't thought about it yet. Sure there are always changes (*cough* town halls */cough*), but that doesn't make your statement any less ridiculous.

"And he's obviously talking about the main game, which is not HC. HC is a special case, in all situations."

Actually, aside from death, hardcore is virtually never a special case. The two modes are identical in every single other way. But that's beside the point, I'm aware that if HC were in the game, in this context, he'd be talking about SC and taking HC for granted, but HC is currently not in the game. At all. Not even conceptually if we are to believe the devs. It's not out of the game either, but not being out is not the same thing as being in.

"Same reason everyone else is in this forum?"

No, (most) everybody else in the forum has a fairly significant interest in what happens with HC. You are a softie and will buy the game regardless.

"Wait, "idiot face designers" has a meaning?"

No more meaning than any number of other insults. It's akin to saying "stupid head" or something else along those lines.
Insults are a lot like gifts... the fact that you bothered to give anything says you care to some minor degree. If you put a lot of thought into it, it probably means you care a lot.

I could probably justify that "idiot face" has meaning, but then I'd be putting thought into a flippant remark, and I really don't care that much about how stupid some of the things Jay Wilson says have been.

"In addition to that, you put "physical location", probably meaning "physical allocation". In any case, that didn't make any sense, either."

Actually, if you look a little bit more closely at the entire post, you'd see I probably meant "relocation". But firstly "location" is still spelled correctly, and secondly the reason the mistake is there has very little to do with inability to spell so much as not bothering to proof read posts in a video game forum.

"How about you start earning more money than them before you call them idiots, OK? Or find some other insult. One which makes more sense."

Finding insults that make sense would be actually insulting rather than something offhand, so I'm not going to do that.
Hopefully you realize how moronic the first bit is, I'd suggest breaking that line out next time someone pokes fun at Paris Hilton or some other random talentless celebrity.

"but the HC category is pretty small, so why would they discuss that."

For about the 20th time; it's not that they're not discussing it. It's that when the topic is brought up, they dismiss it as something they've yet to give thought to. At the same time, many of the changes they have discussed (portals, hostility) have incredible ramifications for HC play and next to none for SC.

"That sentence, again, doesn't make any sense."

Sure it does. Blizzard has a track record of not listening to minority wants while developing their games. They haven't fixed TPPK yet because it only ruins HC play. Warcraft 3 was designed to be an easier RTS to play than BW via concepts such as autocast, fewer units, and skewing hp:damage ratios to make dancing easier. Diablo 3 is not going to be PK friendly. They continue to make raid content more accessible (eg easier) in WoW.

So given that sort of track record, the fact that Jay Wilson does not consider a death penalty to be necessary, and the fact that Jay Wilson has stated they have yet to discuss whether or not HC will be in the game (again, because you don't seem to get it, it's not that he's not discussing HC, it's that he's not even discussing if HC will be there), why should I assume HC will be in the game?

Don't get me wrong, I'm aware it'll probably be there as it's a fairly simple thing to implement, but it's far from being as certain as many of the other aspects that we've heard about so far.