[MUD-Dev] Removing the almighty experience point...

[Sean Middleditch]

On Wed, 1969-12-31 at 23:59 +0000, richard at kavir.org wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:25:41 -0700
> Sean Middleditch <elanthis at awesomeplay.com> wrote:

>> Using just some pre-written "level" field for the monster is not
>> going to work.  A monster might be a very difficult fight for a
>> level 10 wizard but a very easy fight for a level 10 warrior. The
>> difficult should instead be determined by either a) the
>> individual attributes, or b) measurements taken during the actual
>> battle.

> Basing the xp on individual attributes might help somewhat,
> although it could also encourage some odd behaviour (such as
> characters stripping down to their underwear in order to get the
> most xp for their kills).  Combined with the exp domain you
> described previously, Bubba would find himself being able to
> improve his sword skill faster if he used a battle axe (in which
> he was unskilled) instead of his longsword.  If he wielded a
> herring (which makes an exceptionally poor weapon) instead, he'd
> be able to improve his sword skill even faster still.  To me this
> is counter-intuitive.

The weapon skill issue I fully agree on.  It's the one area the pure
XP system breaks down on.  Granted, it's not like the problem is any
_worse_ than conventional class based systems.  But it's not as good
as I want.

The problem isn't too bad, since in complete honesty, you _will_
become a better swordsman even if you practice with an axe.  A huge
amount of (the majority of) skill in combat has absolutely nothing
to do with the weapon used.  I've fought with a polearm maybe five
times in my life, but I'm still far better with it than most people
who've never fought with a weapon at all.

> Basing the xp on actual measurements would be even worse, as you'd
> effectively be punishing player skill.  The first solution you
> proposed might punish a good character setup, but this solution
> also punishes good player performance.  Once again I find this
> counter-intuitive, and it's the exact opposite of what I'm trying
> to achieve within my own game.

Well, back to your original argument - why should player ingenuity
and tactics help make them better at swinging a sword?  If I figure
out a quick and efficient way to knock off a powerful opponent, I'm
not going to get any practice in with my actual skills.

>> How many resources did the wizard lose?  (prepared spells, mana
>> points, health points, item uses/charges, etc.)  How many
>> resources did the monster lose?  How many successful attacks did
>> each make?  How damaging on average was each participant's
>> attacks?

> Boffo the wizard engages in combat with a small rat, which he
> occasionally hits with his soft (yet pointed) hat.  Then he sits
> back and lets it nibble on his shoes while he enchants all of his
> gear.  Once he's finished upgrading his equipment he treads on the
> rat, killing it, and earns a large sum of xp.

Why would he get a large sum of XP?  Was the fight difficult?  The
rat offered no threat.  It cost him no resources.  (He cast spells,
but as part of the combat.)  Your example implies poor measurements.

> Also worth noting is that it would remove much of the incentive to
> search for stronger monsters to fight - you could stick with the
> same monster for quite a long time, just removing equipment and
> fighting with increasingly poor tactics the stronger your
> character became.

Right.  Something that does need fixing.

One method might be to combine both measure and conventional pre-
determined difficulty.

Another point is that the player should _pay_ for using worse
equipment and tactics.  If he can heal up all damage after a fight
practically for free in your game, then taking damage isn't a big
deal and isn't worth awarding a lot of experience for - the damage
doesn't pose a real risk.

In some games, perhaps damage isn't all that easy to heal.  Or, if
it is, it takes time.  If you have a potion that instantly heals all
your wounds, you are _not_ going to enjoy the effects of drinking
that potion.  At all.  I'd be surprised if you survived drinking it
if you had a lot of wounds...  Make that potion take time as it
slowly stiches things back together without too much shock, however
(which I've seen a number of games do), and now the player isn't
much further ahead.  Sure, he's able to get more XP out of killing
that monster (legitimately, I'll note, by getting more practice out
of his skill - if he was able to kill the troll with a fish, he
obviously has been doing _something_ right), but he's going to have
to spend a lot of time doing nothing while he recuperates and builds
up his resources again.  That mage just cast all his spells on one
monster?  OK.  How long is it going to take to regain all that mana?
In the time that character takes to recuperate, even if it's only a
handful of minutes real-time, another character could kill many more
monsters using more reasonable tactics.  They get less XP per kill,
perhaps, but they can make a lot more kills.

>> The Real World(tm) functions fine with currency.

> That's highly debatable.  Do you really want to simulate a system
> in which the top 1% earn as much as the poorest 57%?

Hmm.  Sounds like most MMRPGs to me.  Every character has
10,000,000,000 gold, a bazillion uber-powerful priceless artifacts,
and your average NPC owns a stick and a set of clothes.

>> The problem with game economics tends to be a lack of realism in
>> the economics.  For example, there is an infinite number of coins
>> in the game.  As time passes, more coins come into being.  In the
>> real world, there is a fixed amount of coinage.  Even when the
>> government mints new coins or prints more bills, it's usually at
>> a rate fairly near the estimated loss/destruction of existing
>> currency.

>> In a game, the solution is to provide a fixed amount of coinage
>> and goods.  For example, say you have some monsters (orcs) that
>> normally have coins and equipment.  Well, simply, give the orcs a
>> pool of coins and equipment.

> Unfortunately it's not that simple, as the monsters themselves are
> often a resource in their own right.  What if it's not the orcs
> equipment I'm after, but their skin, or ears, or bones, or
> whatever else?  Will you put the orcs in the pool as well?  What
> if I started hunting down and skinning other PCs, or crafting
> weapons and armour from their bones?  You can't put them in the
> pool!

Monsters are renewable resources, of course.  ;-)

> And what about other resources, such as food?  If I can't afford
> to buy bread, and there's no more fish to be caught, my character
> is going to starve to death.  Obviously in the real world this
> does happen, but do you really want PCs to starve to death because
> they can't afford to eat?  Is it really fun, as a newbie, to have
> to spend half your online time begging from others just to stay
> alive?

That's an over-exaggeration of my suggestion.  Many resources are
renewable and do keep coming into the system.  Such as food.  And
then, of course, they go right back out of the system - consumption.

The total amount of goods isn't perfectly fixed.  I admittedly
implied that in my original mail; my fault.

While there may be infinite fish to catch in the sea, or always the
possibility of harvesting more wheat and baking more bread, other
resources are _not_ infinite.  There is not enough coin around for
every player on a server whose been around for more than 6 months to
have earned 10,000,000,000 gold.  There aren't enough Staffs of God
Destruction for every wizard to own one and have a spare.  There
isn't enough mithril around for every adventurer who hits level 10
to have a whole suit of armor, two weapons, and an assortment of
jewelry (enchanted, no less) made of the stuff.

Yet, because the economies of these games have infinite high-value
resources (such a mob that keeps respawning that keeps dropping
these priceless quest pieces that apparently are also infinite in
number)

> There reaches a point where realism is no longer fun, and IMO this
> is one of them.  Better just to create an artificial economy which

... I think that is the first time, ever, that I've been on the
*receiving* end of that argument.  ~_^ Fair point, well taken.

> supports the fact that some resources are infinite.  A mud
> operates very differently to the real world, and a balanced
> economy system will need to recognise those differences and
> respond accordingly.

Unfortunately, I've not seen many that do "respond accordingly" and
result in balanced economies.  Especially not high-fantasy MUDs.
The additional problem is that, in an economy where everyone is rich
and every has access to uber-powerful equipment, that equipment
becomes worthless.  If everyone has a sword +1,000, there is no
point in _needing_ the sword +1,000.  Just remove the magic swords
and make all monsters killable without.  Either way, everyone's at
the top of the food chain and monsters are just as difficult
over-all.

It also removes the wonder from the game.  That blue anodized steel
sword with the enchantment to make it hum when precious gems are
near is boring and worthless when there you have your choice between
a million other magic swords, many of which are far more useful.

Furthermore, once you have a player base that is mostly powerful
characters, you are forced to make all new content simply even
_more_ powerful, just fueling the fire.  Especially in a high
fantasy game, where you can't rely on ingenuity.  Players can
teleport past any obstacle, open locks just by thinking about it,
slaughter thousands of weak monsters in a single action, summon gods
to answer any question, and pretty much avoid any consequences for
any action they take.  Even if you limit the personal power of a
character in the skill system, when you have infinite resources
available to the character, they'll obtain the power just the same.
Instead of a level treadmill, you have an equipment treadmill.  Or
both.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev