Your basic premise is that giving people a harsh death penalty will make them play better. In practice what happens is that people stop playing. Remember, we're talking MMORPG, not Call of Duty or some other lobby based fps. In the MMORPG you've played where a harsh death penalty exists and the players are wiser, you have fewer players. You're not turning people into wise mmorpg players...you're just removing the ones who don't like the harsh death penalties (among other things...mmmorpg have a whole host of issues not related to dying in the game).
That premised is based on experience of playing Everquest for 6 years and Wow for 4 years. I am stil in that mind set of having a death penalty of some kind. This whole thread is based on subjective views. I don't believe in a harsh death penalty like EQ where you could de-level and loose all of your items on your character. Maybe xp loss is the wrong route to go. But there needs to be some kind of death penalty to reward the living. I know that groups lasted longer in EQ vs. WoW. Wipes happed way mroe frequently in WoW. Have you ever played both titles? If so, maybe you had a different experience than I.
EQ and WoW are very different games. But let's run with that. People left EQ for EQ2. A lot of people. Why? They did the same thing when WoW came out...left EQ2 for WoW. Why is that? One reason is because each successive game levied fewer punitive damages against the players for just playing the game.
In all seriousness, why would a game developer institute a game mechanic that they know will limit the audience for their game? A game mechanic that would be trivially easy to implement. It would nearly cost nothing...just {if playerdeath = true then xp = xp - 3000}. Remember, we're talking MMORPGs, not a lobby based FPS.
How you can say EQ and WoW are very different games when much of WoW's game design was taken from EQ1. People leave 5 year old EQ1 for EQ2 because that is to be expected?? Say Blizzard released WoW 2 in 2011 hypothetically, do you honestly believe the 13+ million players would all stay in the 6+ year old WoW and not migrate to the same thing with more shinies? As for EQ2 and WoW, they came out within 2 weeks of each other in 2004. There are ALOT of unproven generalizations taken in your argument that people left EQ1 or 2 for WoW because of DP.
In all seriousness, a game developer isn't trying to develop next WoW killer but rather a MMO where people are encouraged to pay attention to what they are doing would likely institute some variation of the different DP ideas discussed in this thread. As long as the company can make money, the game is sucessful. Several older MMO with DP implemented such as EVE, FFXI, and "gasp" EQ1 are still around because they still have the numbers of subs to support it. Blizzard with their success of WoW is admirable but not necessary the best thing for MMORPG as a genre.
Originally posted by Params7 Originally posted by grimm6th why do you want an XP death penalty? time wasted IS a death penalty, and XP loss is just time wasted. Having to repair armor is also time wasted (getting the money to repair the armor or loss of savings you wanted to use on other things), but it doesn't cause nearly as much problems because most games are about the progression of characters and taking away that progression can make the time wasted feel useless, whereas degrading armor (which makes more sense anyways) doesn't really change the character progression. btw, I am looking forward to GW2, which has no DP, no corpse runs, no armor degrading, and easy resing for everyone. It also isn't a game that makes its money by stretching out the time it takes for people to progress their characters, and this shows in the fact that the leveling curve (time per level) is flat. GW2 doesn't need a greater death penalty than for players to feel bad about failure, and most people don't like failing at something...it just isn't fun.
Entirely Bull concept. Demon's Souls punished its players badly. Not only would the game put you in the beginning of the level everytime you died, you would lose all your souls (progress - but a chance to get them back is there if you don't die again), and get this - enemies get STRONGER, and your health gets cut in HALF. That's the game's way of telling gamers "don't die or go **** yourself". End result? It stole all RPG GoTY's of 2009, and the overall GoTY of several big-name publications such as Gamestop. Why?
I think somehow, the game actually became more fun when there is real danger involved. Failure hurt. But only when you're hurt and beat it, the sense of accomplishment is unreal and what made that game so great. DS isn't hard, as long as you don't play foolishly you won't die at all infact. But really, I can't see how people would find a DP-less game more exciting. When you can't fail it becomes boring as hell imo. Its a balance, a force creates equal and opposite reactions. An "oh **** I'm going to die" will result in great sense of achievement when you beat it. An "I died again oh well no big deal nothing lost nothing will happen if I die again and eventually I'll beat it" won't generate crap.
Demon's Souls was not an MMORPG, it was a console RPG with an online component. It also had a full soundtrack and an actual storyline. It was the whole package that gave it those awards, not the death penalty. It has sold roughly a half million copies since 2009 when it was released.
Age of Conan, one of the worst MMORPG releases ever sold roughly a half million copies the first month it was out.
Critical success is not business success. AoC, a game that took years to get to a decently playable state sold more boxes the first two months it was out as Demon's Souls has sold the entire time it existed. Age of Conan does not have a stiff death penalty. Stiff death penalties do not sell as well as less harsh death penalties.
---
You have to make whatever death penalties exist in the game make sense for the game itself. Players are less likely to enjoy a punitive death penalty and less likely to continue playing a game with a punitive death penalty. You can't just arbitrarily add a punitive death penalty and magically make people play better. If the death penalty doesn't make sense, it will just be another reason to not play the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
... how about some kind of debuff that reduces xp gain for a period of time...
Thank you. I was actually discussing this with one of my good friends. He also mentioned a de-buff. Maybe the de-buff will stack every time you die. I think item degradation is a realistic mechanic that is use. But that shouldn't be soley determined as a death penalty.
However, how long should a death de-buff last? What should it affect? Stats? Run speed? Should the de-buff be somewhat harsh when you first obtain it? Also, does everytime you die does the de-buff duration increase? If you're in a group and you've wiped, and the de-buff lasts 5 mins players will just wait it out. More time wasted. Time will always be wasted in any death penalty design. It's just how you waste your time.
I would steer clear of a debuff that reduces stats or character performance. At best it will force players to wait out the debuff, at worst it can lead to further deaths since it is easy to underestimate how much such a debuff affects your characters power. The last thing you want is a death penalty that causes further deaths!
I was talking about a debuff which directly affects the rate at which future xp is gained. To illustrate with an example:
- Under the xp loss method a character loses 1,000 xp when he dies.
- Under the debuff method the character loses no xp but only gains 75% of the next 4,000 xp.
In both cases the xp penalty is 1,000 but it is presented in a very different way. Also, if a character has not worked it's xp penalty off by the end of the evening the debuff most likely expires overnight so the player has a fresh start the next day.
Now that I read through some of these posts, if I have to support some kind of death penalty, it would be this. It's doing the same thing, but not putting back to a previous level. It's just going to take you a little bit longer to get to the next level. This is not a bad idea, if we have to have a death penalty. The only place this falls apart is after the leveling process is done. It's casual friendly, but still makes you say "damn if I wouldn't have died I'd be to level x already!"
The only other potential problem with a system such as this, the game would need to be designed with enough content to support maybe 20, to through an arbitrary number out there, per player while leveling.
But overall, this is not a bad system. Something I would support, and I despise death penalties with a passion. It's not in your face, nor does it make you go through and regain experience that you've already gained once.
As for another possible death penalty I would support, it's an idea that always annoyed the crap out of me in Guild Wars before EotN. This will come in 2 parts.
1) Group works, i.e. dungeons/raids.
In GW1, whenever your group wiped during a mission, you had to start the entire mission over again. I would support something like this for end game group work. If you wipe, then you need to start over at the very beginning and get it right. This will also make those last minute saves absolutely seem absolutely amazing and create amazing stories people can tell.
2) Solo/Level cap quest work
Instant failure of the quests you are on, on death. So you have to go back to your corpse, and then go find all those quests again.
I'm trying to give the opposing side something. However, I do not agree with death penalties such as material loss, xp loss, gold loss. Those things you spent so much time getting, why should you have to go through the grind to get them again...and again. Dungeons/Raids shouldn't be absolutely required at end game, and they should be designed to be a challenge for the people in the dungeons/raids. And failure on the quests, all you would have to do is get the quests again. If it's an ultra-rare quests, then your out of luck I guess. Shouldn't have committed the crime of death :P.
Having said that psychologists have shown you get better results by rewarding good behavior instead of punishing bad. How about the longer you go (in game) without dying the more of an xp bonus you get or the longer your xp bonus lasts? A death would wipe out your xp bonus, so you didn't really lose anything, you just are no longer getting extra credit.
Having said that psychologists have shown you get better results by rewarding good behavior instead of punishing bad. How about the longer you go (in game) without dying the more of an xp bonus you get or the longer your xp bonus lasts? A death would wipe out your xp bonus, so you didn't really lose anything, you just are no longer getting extra credit.
I agree 100% with everything but your opening line.
HARSH death penalties are a foolish idea imo. I can handle reversable decay and time loss, but not XP loss or item loss.
Along the same lines as what you suggested (bonuses), you could offer XP debuffs of say -5%, -10%, -15% (cap it at some point) for an hour or so. Both lotro and Chronicles of Spellborn offer these types of systems - Chronicles in the form of bonuses (5% faster run speed) for not dying, lotro in the form of (reparable) item decay and lessened gain in certain areas (skirmish tokens).
I firmly believe that a 'harsh' death penalty does more harm than good. I'd prefer to run an instance or PvP and die all night long while having fun, than to die once and lose something of value to me. Games are meant to be fun.
Ebonfly you bring a good concept to the table. I have never even considered that before. Hindering character performance would be a bad idea like you stated above. But hindering the rate you gain xp for a duration doesn't seem that bad. With a little tweaking and testing I think that could be a good system. You may agree, but game swith a stricter death penalty you'd find more wise players, from my experience anyways.
Like I said before I think there needs to be a somewhat strict death penalty but doens't hinder a lot of time wasted nor character performance. But when we play mmos, we are wasting time anyways. I don't see why people doesn't see that aspect of this whole thing.
Whats your opinion on death being repeated by a character? Should that xp de-buff stack? Would there be a cap? Would you consider the de-buff of experience gained to a certian interval like you posted above? Or simply for a certain duration?
I think it's important the xp debuff can never get so high that it completely discourages players from doing what they want to do. In my example I used a rate of 25% and that is really at the upper limit in my opinion, a lower rate is probably better.
As far as multiple deaths are concerned I don't see any reason why the duration of debuffs shouldn't stack ad infinitum. So if you died repeatedly you might end up with a debuff that lasts several days. However, it depends largely on how the rest of the game is set up. I wouldn't expect players to die all that often in general open-world play but if the game features lots of tough mid-level bosses perhaps it is not desirable to punish players harshly for trying to learn those encounters. Or maybe you make the rewards so great that the risk is worth it...
As to the duration of the debuff I guess I prefer the idea that it has a time based duration because that skews the system in favour of players who can't play for hours on end. Though that may seem unfair, MMOs already favour those who can play long hours in lots of other respects and I think that players who have limited time generally find death penalties more frustrating anyway. I also like the idea that players can sleep off and start with a clean slate the next day.
Having said that psychologists have shown you get better results by rewarding good behavior instead of punishing bad. How about the longer you go (in game) without dying the more of an xp bonus you get or the longer your xp bonus lasts? A death would wipe out your xp bonus, so you didn't really lose anything, you just are no longer getting extra credit.
I think this is an excellent suggestion. Rather than penalize players for dying, reward them for not dying. In the final analysis it amounts to the same thing as an xp debuff but it gets presented to the player in a much more positive way. It could even be made into quite a fun mechanic as it creates a metagame of trying to keep your xp bonus as high as possible.
The idea is better yet if it can somehow be linked to the amount of risks being taken, ie a player who takes risks and survives would gain more xp bonus than a player who adopts a play-safe strategy.
Having said that psychologists have shown you get better results by rewarding good behavior instead of punishing bad. How about the longer you go (in game) without dying the more of an xp bonus you get or the longer your xp bonus lasts? A death would wipe out your xp bonus, so you didn't really lose anything, you just are no longer getting extra credit.
I think this is an excellent suggestion. Rather than penalize players for dying, reward them for not dying. In the final analysis it amounts to the same thing as an xp debuff but it gets presented to the player in a much more positive way. It could even be made into quite a fun mechanic as it creates a metagame of trying to keep your xp bonus as high as possible.
The idea is better yet if it can somehow be linked to the amount of risks being taken, ie a player who takes risks and survives would gain more xp bonus than a player who adopts a play-safe strategy.
It all just time wasted. As long as it makes me mad it works. There is also the real risk of people playing TOO well.
too harsh
In EVE, if I loose a ship, that's probably a couple hours to days time lost. That is too much, I end up playing too cautiously and miss out on what could be fun. I only fly in low sec with mean friends and go into even PvE fights where I'll wtfpwn 95% of the time.
too easy
In Darkfall, I really don't care if you kill me. I have ready bags and can be back to 100% in about 1 minute. Stuff is too cheap to make.
In CO, I usually only have a short time to run/fly/teleport back so I fight crazy, pulling way too many foes. Sometimes this is fun, but it doesn't get my blood flowing. maybe 2 or 3 minutes lost.
better, could be harsher
in Fallen Earth i often have to run a long long way, someone has killed my horse or motorcycle, and my armor need to be fixed. I might fail a mission and have to go a long long way back to get it again. This puts me playing cautiously, but not anally. Probably 10 to 15 minutes lost on average.
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
I'm a little stunned at this. Someone in this day and age actually WANTS an experience penalty on death? I can just imagine this message being sent to a high level player after dying in a guild raid:
"Congratulations! Your team managed to finish the epic dungeon and beat the end boss! BUT, because you got picked off just before reaching the exit, we're going to have to dock you 5 percent of your experience points. Sorry that you're no longer able to equip any of your top level gear, but you can at least have fun grinding for the next two hours before you can start enjoying the game again."
Death penalties are an archaic and widely despised game mechanic to begin with, but if we're going to include them we might as well have something like equipment degradation on death which can at least be mitigated to some extent. Experience penalties are absolutely awful.
Archiac eh? That doesn't negate the fact that it's a bad mechanic. I'll tell you the reason why I think an xp loss penatly is favored here at the moment. If you played EQ and WoW you should be able to understand my reasoning.
An xp penalty is probably one of the harsh death penalty mechanics. I think because of the strict penalty it makes the game more serious for players. In Wow when you wipe it isn't that big of a deal. You run in ghost form to your corpse and bam your fine. An extra 1-2 mins taken away. That isn't that bad. What gets bad is when it happens all the time. When you wipe in wow all the time with pugs, the pugs disband. In Everquest, if we wiped we fixed it. We didn't do it again. Players were always on their toes. It made players wise of when to take risks and when to not take risks. You didn't wipe as much and you could accomplish more things. So thats my reasoning behind it. Whether or not you think it's strong or not. That's fine. I am still up changing the penatly to something else.
Exactly when you wipe in POSKY and get dropped in FP and have to run all the way back to EC... get ported back up and set up again and on top of it you lose 10% exp. That is the fun of it ... the game is challanging and you stop making those mistakes quickly lol. I project 1999.
Having said that psychologists have shown you get better results by rewarding good behavior instead of punishing bad. How about the longer you go (in game) without dying the more of an xp bonus you get or the longer your xp bonus lasts? A death would wipe out your xp bonus, so you didn't really lose anything, you just are no longer getting extra credit.
I agree 100% with everything but your opening line.
HARSH death penalties are a foolish idea imo. I can handle reversable decay and time loss, but not XP loss or item loss.
Along the same lines as what you suggested (bonuses), you could offer XP debuffs of say -5%, -10%, -15% (cap it at some point) for an hour or so. Both lotro and Chronicles of Spellborn offer these types of systems - Chronicles in the form of bonuses (5% faster run speed) for not dying, lotro in the form of (reparable) item decay and lessened gain in certain areas (skirmish tokens).
I firmly believe that a 'harsh' death penalty does more harm than good. I'd prefer to run an instance or PvP and die all night long while having fun, than to die once and lose something of value to me. Games are meant to be fun.
Tux, I never said I was in favor of a HARSH death penalty. I totally agree that a harsh one like the original one in EQ1 is counter productive. In DAoC, you lost 10% (couldn't lose a level), but you got half of the penalty back for going to your gravestone. So essentially it was a 5% xp loss, plus the time to run to your gravestone and the time it took to get 5% of your level, which was only about 10-15 minutes at almost max level (this is all pre-ToA).
Now back to the Lack of Death Reward...I think if we talk this out enough some game company may incorporate this in the future. I like the addendum to the idea of tweaking the formula based on the difficulty of the mobs you face. Using the WoW con system
Greys and Greens do not qualify for the reward.
Blues give a small number
Yellows give a base number
Oranges and up give some number greater than the yellows.
That's for solo, now for parties. This is much more tricky.
sum of total levels in the party/count of party members would give you an average party level. Average mob level per pull computed in the same manner as the avg party member level. Then divide the average mob level by the average party member level which would give you difficulty rating for the pull. Use this to adjust the bonus points, but use the con of the mob compared to the highest party member level. Essentially this would mean you don't get the Lack of Death Reward for being power-leveled.
Comments
Entirely Bull concept. Demon's Souls punished its players badly. Not only would the game put you in the beginning of the level everytime you died, you would lose all your souls (progress - but a chance to get them back is there if you don't die again), and get this - enemies get STRONGER, and your health gets cut in HALF. That's the game's way of telling gamers "don't die or go **** yourself". End result?
It stole all RPG GoTY's of 2009, and the overall GoTY of several big-name publications such as Gamestop. Why?
I think somehow, the game actually became more fun when there is real danger involved. Failure hurt. But only when you're hurt and beat it, the sense of accomplishment is unreal and what made that game so great. DS isn't hard, as long as you don't play foolishly you won't die at all infact. But really, I can't see how people would find a DP-less game more exciting.
When you can't fail it becomes boring as hell imo. Its a balance, a force creates equal and opposite reactions. An "oh **** I'm going to die" will result in great sense of achievement when you beat it. An "I died again oh well no big deal nothing lost nothing will happen if I die again and eventually I'll beat it" won't generate crap.
Demon's Souls was not an MMORPG, it was a console RPG with an online component. It also had a full soundtrack and an actual storyline. It was the whole package that gave it those awards, not the death penalty. It has sold roughly a half million copies since 2009 when it was released.
Age of Conan, one of the worst MMORPG releases ever sold roughly a half million copies the first month it was out.
Critical success is not business success. AoC, a game that took years to get to a decently playable state sold more boxes the first two months it was out as Demon's Souls has sold the entire time it existed. Age of Conan does not have a stiff death penalty. Stiff death penalties do not sell as well as less harsh death penalties.
---
You have to make whatever death penalties exist in the game make sense for the game itself. Players are less likely to enjoy a punitive death penalty and less likely to continue playing a game with a punitive death penalty. You can't just arbitrarily add a punitive death penalty and magically make people play better. If the death penalty doesn't make sense, it will just be another reason to not play the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Now that I read through some of these posts, if I have to support some kind of death penalty, it would be this. It's doing the same thing, but not putting back to a previous level. It's just going to take you a little bit longer to get to the next level. This is not a bad idea, if we have to have a death penalty. The only place this falls apart is after the leveling process is done. It's casual friendly, but still makes you say "damn if I wouldn't have died I'd be to level x already!"
The only other potential problem with a system such as this, the game would need to be designed with enough content to support maybe 20, to through an arbitrary number out there, per player while leveling.
But overall, this is not a bad system. Something I would support, and I despise death penalties with a passion. It's not in your face, nor does it make you go through and regain experience that you've already gained once.
As for another possible death penalty I would support, it's an idea that always annoyed the crap out of me in Guild Wars before EotN. This will come in 2 parts.
1) Group works, i.e. dungeons/raids.
In GW1, whenever your group wiped during a mission, you had to start the entire mission over again. I would support something like this for end game group work. If you wipe, then you need to start over at the very beginning and get it right. This will also make those last minute saves absolutely seem absolutely amazing and create amazing stories people can tell.
2) Solo/Level cap quest work
Instant failure of the quests you are on, on death. So you have to go back to your corpse, and then go find all those quests again.
I'm trying to give the opposing side something. However, I do not agree with death penalties such as material loss, xp loss, gold loss. Those things you spent so much time getting, why should you have to go through the grind to get them again...and again. Dungeons/Raids shouldn't be absolutely required at end game, and they should be designed to be a challenge for the people in the dungeons/raids. And failure on the quests, all you would have to do is get the quests again. If it's an ultra-rare quests, then your out of luck I guess. Shouldn't have committed the crime of death :P.
Personally, I'm in favor of a death penalty.
Having said that psychologists have shown you get better results by rewarding good behavior instead of punishing bad. How about the longer you go (in game) without dying the more of an xp bonus you get or the longer your xp bonus lasts? A death would wipe out your xp bonus, so you didn't really lose anything, you just are no longer getting extra credit.
I agree 100% with everything but your opening line.
HARSH death penalties are a foolish idea imo. I can handle reversable decay and time loss, but not XP loss or item loss.
Along the same lines as what you suggested (bonuses), you could offer XP debuffs of say -5%, -10%, -15% (cap it at some point) for an hour or so. Both lotro and Chronicles of Spellborn offer these types of systems - Chronicles in the form of bonuses (5% faster run speed) for not dying, lotro in the form of (reparable) item decay and lessened gain in certain areas (skirmish tokens).
I firmly believe that a 'harsh' death penalty does more harm than good. I'd prefer to run an instance or PvP and die all night long while having fun, than to die once and lose something of value to me. Games are meant to be fun.
I think it's important the xp debuff can never get so high that it completely discourages players from doing what they want to do. In my example I used a rate of 25% and that is really at the upper limit in my opinion, a lower rate is probably better.
As far as multiple deaths are concerned I don't see any reason why the duration of debuffs shouldn't stack ad infinitum. So if you died repeatedly you might end up with a debuff that lasts several days. However, it depends largely on how the rest of the game is set up. I wouldn't expect players to die all that often in general open-world play but if the game features lots of tough mid-level bosses perhaps it is not desirable to punish players harshly for trying to learn those encounters. Or maybe you make the rewards so great that the risk is worth it...
As to the duration of the debuff I guess I prefer the idea that it has a time based duration because that skews the system in favour of players who can't play for hours on end. Though that may seem unfair, MMOs already favour those who can play long hours in lots of other respects and I think that players who have limited time generally find death penalties more frustrating anyway. I also like the idea that players can sleep off and start with a clean slate the next day.
I think this is an excellent suggestion. Rather than penalize players for dying, reward them for not dying. In the final analysis it amounts to the same thing as an xp debuff but it gets presented to the player in a much more positive way. It could even be made into quite a fun mechanic as it creates a metagame of trying to keep your xp bonus as high as possible.
The idea is better yet if it can somehow be linked to the amount of risks being taken, ie a player who takes risks and survives would gain more xp bonus than a player who adopts a play-safe strategy.
That is a very excellent idea. I like it alot.
It all just time wasted. As long as it makes me mad it works. There is also the real risk of people playing TOO well.
too harsh
In EVE, if I loose a ship, that's probably a couple hours to days time lost. That is too much, I end up playing too cautiously and miss out on what could be fun. I only fly in low sec with mean friends and go into even PvE fights where I'll wtfpwn 95% of the time.
too easy
In Darkfall, I really don't care if you kill me. I have ready bags and can be back to 100% in about 1 minute. Stuff is too cheap to make.
In CO, I usually only have a short time to run/fly/teleport back so I fight crazy, pulling way too many foes. Sometimes this is fun, but it doesn't get my blood flowing. maybe 2 or 3 minutes lost.
better, could be harsher
in Fallen Earth i often have to run a long long way, someone has killed my horse or motorcycle, and my armor need to be fixed. I might fail a mission and have to go a long long way back to get it again. This puts me playing cautiously, but not anally. Probably 10 to 15 minutes lost on average.
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
Exactly when you wipe in POSKY and get dropped in FP and have to run all the way back to EC... get ported back up and set up again and on top of it you lose 10% exp. That is the fun of it ... the game is challanging and you stop making those mistakes quickly lol. I
project 1999.
Tux, I never said I was in favor of a HARSH death penalty. I totally agree that a harsh one like the original one in EQ1 is counter productive. In DAoC, you lost 10% (couldn't lose a level), but you got half of the penalty back for going to your gravestone. So essentially it was a 5% xp loss, plus the time to run to your gravestone and the time it took to get 5% of your level, which was only about 10-15 minutes at almost max level (this is all pre-ToA).
Now back to the Lack of Death Reward...I think if we talk this out enough some game company may incorporate this in the future. I like the addendum to the idea of tweaking the formula based on the difficulty of the mobs you face. Using the WoW con system
Greys and Greens do not qualify for the reward.
Blues give a small number
Yellows give a base number
Oranges and up give some number greater than the yellows.
That's for solo, now for parties. This is much more tricky.
sum of total levels in the party/count of party members would give you an average party level. Average mob level per pull computed in the same manner as the avg party member level. Then divide the average mob level by the average party member level which would give you difficulty rating for the pull. Use this to adjust the bonus points, but use the con of the mob compared to the highest party member level. Essentially this would mean you don't get the Lack of Death Reward for being power-leveled.
What do you think?