[MUD-Dev] Exponential experience points and levels

[Sean Middleditch]

On Mon, 2004-06-28 at 11:54, ceo wrote:

> There's no reason why it should be limited to battles - I've
> played about with roguelike games in the past where I awarded
> bonus exp for each turn the player managed to survive in a
> dangerous area (e.g. compare player hp and stats to the average
> for wandering monsters in that area, and when the player is
> sufficiently below par to be in serious danger start adding bonus
> exp simply for staying alive), which enables you to play an
> exploration game without *ever* fighting, but still going up in
> levels.

Slightly OT note: this is why I much prefer having different types
of experience.  Exploration doesn't teach you anything about how to
better wield a weapon, how to cast magic, how to build/craft things,
etc.  It will perhaps teach you how to sneak, spot traps, etc.
Exploration experience should only help you improve abilities
related to exploration.

The system I use is to provide several different experience
pools. Warrior pool, magic pool, rogue pool, general pool.  (More
can be added as necessary.)  Warriors skills/abilities are tied to
your warrior experience points only.  So if all you ever do is hit
things with sharp metal sticks (aka swords) that's all you're ever
going to be skilled at.  But because it's exp/level based, it
doesn't have the tediousness of the skill systems that require you
to practice individual skills, and it also doesn't require players
to micro-manage all the skills they want to spend points on.

> But to look at battles as a convenient LCD... If you beat an
> opponent of similar (appoximately - see NB below) ability, then
> you get no experience. Or, perhaps, you have a random chance of
> getting some and the loser loses sum - if the designer is
> confident they can balance this. Personally, I'd err on the side
> of safety and be mean with exp awards :).

> If you beat someone of lesser ability, again you get nothing - and
> may even lose experience ("character grows accustomed to lesser
> opponents; character gets slightly lazy, slightly slower, slightly
> less alert" or similar).  If you beat someone of significantly
> greater ability, you get experience. The more they are better than
> you, the more exp you get, exponentially (on the assumption that
> when one fighter is 2X better rather than 1X better they will tend
> to win a lot more than twice as often. YMMV according to combat
> system...).

That shouldn't work as such.  You can learn a _lot_ by fighting
someone even far "weaker" than you.  In truth, in many cases where
you beat someone who is decidedly better than you in arms, you
probably won by pure luck.  I participated in two tournaments
(weapons chosen by combatants, king's rules) last week.  I learned a
great deal about shield usage from someone who in combat I almost
always beat.  I learned absolutely nothing from the several fights I
won against several people I fought; pretty much everyone was
surprised I won those at all.  It was just a lucky swing at the
right time.  I did manage to learn some usual things from fights I
actually lost, as well.  I also went through some fights where I
lost and didn't learn anything useful other than that my opponent
should be avoided in a real fight because they can hand me my ass on
a platter.

--
Sean Middleditch <elanthis at awesomeplay.com>
AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev