[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN] Removing the almighty experience point...

[Tom Hudson]

On 7/26/07, Travis Casey <efindel at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Nicholas Koranda wrote:
> > This is due to a simple problem: XP, as a numerical indicator, is a
> > form of cash. It's untraceable, and it's exchangeable at will. One
> > experience point I got from killing The Grand Boss of the Dungeon is
> > completely equal to one experience point I got from killing
> > a_weak_mob93. I might have gotten oodles of XP from the Grand Boss,
> > but these are equal to the oodles of XP I got from killing hordes of
> > those weak mobs. The only difference between those is the time
> > spent, which has zero influence on the end result: I have earned X
> > amount of XP, I can get to the next level.
>
> Some games use an automatic level adjustment -- that is, the amount
> of XP you get from killing a mob of level X varies according to your
> own level.  If they're too low level, you gain no XP at all.

But that doesn't do anything about "bottom-feeding". In Guid Wars, for
example, killing 2 mobs 3 levels below me gives me almost exactly as
much XP as killing one mob of my level, but (at the low levels I've
played GW) is much safer and about as fast. If I recall correctly,
EQII was similar; so were the Asian games I've played (9Dragons for a
recent example). Vincent's proposal was more to say "As a level 5
character, you received level 2 XP for killing a level 2 mob - which
doesn't do you any good - and level 5 XP for killing a level 5 mob -
which helps you towards level 6." This means that farming easy targets
all day gets you nowhere, at least in the XP department.

> IMHO, though, monster level often isn't the best thing to judge by,
> because there are other factors that can vastly influence how hard it
> is to kill monsters.  Some major ones are monster placement and
> behavior -- a set of monsters of level X who are placed fairly far
> apart and don't move around are much easier to handle than a set of
> the same level (or even the exact same monsters) who are bunched in
> groups, move around more, have patrols, call for help, run when they
> get low on hit points, etc.

IIRC, EQII did something for this with taking into account whether
mobs were solo or in groups, and I thought Vincent alluded to doing
the same thing in his example of crowd-controlling a group of level X
mobs.

> A mud I used to play on had "quest points", which one gained by doing
> quests.  To get to a particular level required both a certain number
> of XP, and a certain number of QP.  The quests you'd already done
> were tracked, so that doing the same quest again would not give any
> quest points.

As I understand Vincent's model, 10 level 1 quests would never add up
to be equivalent to 1 level 10 quest, even if the level 1 quests were
worth 10 QP and the level 10 quest was worth 100 QP.

> > That kind of achievement-based system behaves very differently from
> > an XP-based levelling system. It rewards real world knowledge and
> > skill, notably. An experienced player can roll a new character, and
> > very quickly "level", by simply running to various places he already
> > knows, and reproducing feats he's already seen by other players he
> > grouped with.
>
> I can see this as being exploitable, though... someone else could set
> things up to make an achievement easy (e.g., a high-level character
> clearing the orcs from tower of your example for a newbie).  And I've
> seen plenty of high-levels "run someone around" to help them get to
> places they couldn't normally get to.  Thus, while the intent of the
> system is to reward real-world knowledge and skill, it's still
> possible for someone to get a high level without learning much of
> anything.

In earlier tellings of ATitD, some of this happened, which actually
had a good effect - as the game wore on, and old-timers got higher and
higher up the advancement ladder, it was easier and easier for
newcomers to get up the first few rungs. At the same time, ATitD took
some steps against this. For instance, the Test of the Obelisk
required that you build an Obelisk that was taller than that of
anybody else within a 1km(?)-square region. As time went on and
technology advanced farther, making the materials for the Obelisk
easier and easier to mass-produce, the bar advanced to match.

Tom