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

[Travis Casey]

On Jul 27, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Tom Hudson wrote:
> On 7/26/07, Travis Casey <efindel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Nicholas Koranda wrote:

>> 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.

In which case, the developers simply didn't make the curve steep  
enough.  One could institute such a system and make it where killing  
2 mobs 3 levels below you gives only half as much XP as killing one  
of your level.  Or where it would give an eighth of the XP.

What I'm getting at is that a continuum is possible, with "killing  
monsters always gives the full XP potential of that monster" at one  
end, and "killing 'easy' monsters gives no XP" at the other.  Systems  
which reduce XP for 'easy' monsters are somewhere in the middle,  
depending on how steep the reduction is.

>> 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.

I understood that; I was simply pointing out the existence of another  
sort of partially 'achievement-based' system.

>> 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.

Yep.  The need for progressive tweaking is often something that happens.

--
Travis Casey
efindel at gmail.com