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

[Vincent Archer]

According to Vincent Archer:
> > IT'S A NAIL.
> 
> No it's not.

I wanted to complement my previous message, which hasn't made it thru
moderation yet. And I'm probably going to shut down after, because I don't
think we can have something constructive at this point; we're trying
to achieve different things from a game. This lenghty prose tries to
explain exactly what is the nail, and why I'm not going after the nail.

The achievement system began as a simple intellectual exercise:
to remove the XP from a levelling system. After all, if you can have
XP systems without levels, why not levels without xp?

The main quality of XP is that it is fungible. XP comes from a variety
of sources, but it's all the same. XP obtained by killing a wolf pup
is exactly the same as XP obtained by killing the wolf Den mother, it's
just that you get a bit more from the mother.

This fungibility has an extremely important consequence. For the people
who are interested in accumulating levels as fast as possible, then the
only thing that counts is the ratio of XP/hour one can achieve. They will
find that sweet spot (or find a "levelling guide" on the net that tells
them where to find it), go there, and do that for as long as it takes.

And then, they're going to turn around, and berate you for making a
boring game. Was it Raph who wrote that essay about how people would
seek out the models that they were familiar with on the next game,
while hating it?

People, for the most, hate repeatitive activities in game. Rewarding
the repetition of activity ultimately means that people will be compelled
to make it, despite its boring nature, if it is ever perceived as the
only, or most efficient way of achieving an objective.

Game designers have realised this. To keep your players happy, you
need to promote variety. You need to scour your game, and make sure
sitting at one spot mindlessly clicking on the lever to get the pellet
is not the best way to do it. And the way to promote variety in game
is to make sure... you cannot repeat it.

That's what modern games, like WoW or LOTRO, make. They reduce the XP
you get from critters, and emphasise the XP you get from quests. And
what are quests, if not "achievements". Unique, non-repeatable events
that add up to get you a level.

"I knew it", I hear.

And no, it's not my model who is a poor approximation of the xp/quest
model. Because there's also two things that differ in the two systems.

If, ultimately, you push the system, and remove entirely the repeatable
parts, leaving only the quest, you would think you've implemented an
achievement model, right?

Wrong.

The XP model has also a big flaw. It encourages bottom feeding.

Let's assume that, as a player, I've got access to 40 achievements,
from level 1 to level 40. In the achievement model, I can get to
level 21 from this. And the optimal way of doing it, if you disregard
difficulty, is to do the level 20 to 40 achievements only. My best
strategy is to start by doing any of the level 20-40 achievement I can
do, then another, and so on.

But if you implement achievements as fungible XP-based quests, then
each XP point obtained doing the level 1 achievement is equal to the
XP point obtained doing the level 40 achievement - it's just that the
level 40 achievement gives you more.

But the level 1 quest is no longer available if I'm level 2. So, if
I want to squeeze every last drop of XP from the quests, to get as high
a level as I can, then my best strategy is to do the easy quests first.
If I skip on the first quest, its XP is gone. Forever. My best strategy
is to do the easiest quest first, then the next easiest, and so on, in
increasing difficulty level.

The XP system actually punishes me if I try to do difficult things. If
I do the big quest first, I lose the xp of the easy one. The biggest
reward comes off if I do the easiest thing. In fact, if I try to apply
the achievement strategy of doing only the hard parts, I'm not going
to get level 21; I'm probably going to cap at 18 or 19.

Unless you put a level cap, the XP model discourages you from attempting
hard stuff. You need to put a level cap.

And then, you face the other limit of the XP system.

If there is a level cap, then at one point, the player will reach that
cap, and can no longer progress. It can no longer get a progression
in the form of levels - and to keep it interested in your game, you
need to introduce a new form of progression.

An XP system is ultimately flawed in that it does not provide progression
through your entire game. At one point, you *do* have to discard the
XP system entirely, and resort to a different progression system.

"The game begins at max level". How often did you find this sentence
splattered on player forums? Any achievement-oriented player knows this:
in an XP-based game, the level progression is a transitory phenomenon.
Ultimately, you do have to discard your precious level growth, and resort
to something else.

And the achievement model? Ultimately, it provides a level cap as well.
After all, at one point, you run out of things to do in the game. There
aren't any higher achievements to be done.

In a WoW system, you also run out of things to achieve. That happens
when you've finished looting the last big trinket from the corpse of
the biggest raid mob of the game. The difference? You've been at the
max level for a long time. XP and level stopped being relevant a long
time ago.

In the achievement model, you keep on getting levels (or getting close
to the next level) right until the end of the game.

And yes, the hardest part to swallow by those DIKU-model raised players
is that, no, not every player is going to reach the level cap. People seem
to have an easier time accepting the fact that they're not going to get
the phat lewt items, but they want to get "max level". Which, ultimately,
means nothing, but you can swallow the illusion that you've reached
the pinnacle of achievement, when in fact you've just done the easiest
part of the game.

And yes, if you want to make a mass-market game, it is far better to
provide the illusion, and lie to your players, and tell them "you too,
can be the best". The XP system is used to give that illusion. That's
the nail. And achievement-based progression will not do, because it
will not provide that illusion, the illusion of winning the game.

-- 
	Vincent Archer			Email:	archer at frmug.org

All men are mortal.  Socrates was mortal.  Therefore, all men are Socrates.
							(Woody Allen)