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

[Caliban Darklock]

On 8/30/07, Vincent Archer <archer at frmug.org> wrote:
>
> Make it so that killing a level A mob is a level A+5
> achievement, reduce the visual level of all mobs by 5, and, at level6,
> killing a level 2 mob gives you an achievement, while killing a
> level 1 mob won't.

Now you're just replacing parts of the XP system. Eventually, you're
going to end up with a convoluted series of rules that add up to an XP
system just like the one we've always had.

Because the level 2 mob shouldn't be as much of an achievement as the
level 6 mob. So now you have to have multiple levels of achievements.
Once you do that, you've essentially recreated the experience point
system already. You've just created brackets around existing XP
awards.

> You seem to have
> the perception of a classic "accumulate small chunks of XP to raise
> your power" MMO, where, at level N, you should be doing level N-X to N
> content, and level N+1 content is "above your level".

Not really. My perception is that playing the game the way I think is
fun should allow me to progress in the game. If a goal of level N-X is
not fun to me, I will naturally not pursue it. If it is, then when I
pursue it, I should be recognised and rewarded in some way - however
small - for accomplishing it.

> The question is: why? Why do you NEED to kill a level 1 mob *and* be
> rewarded for it, at level 2.

The corollary question is: Why not?

"Why" is easily answered. I should be rewarded for killing a level 1
mob because I used to be rewarded for killing a level 1 mob. A level 1
mob produces a reward. That is the standard. The reward may be minimal
or even negligible, but it should by all rights be the same reward all
the time. That is what I expect from an online world: predictability.

> But not in the mind set of most players, I'm
> afraid. For most players, their level represents the ceiling of their
> abilities, instead of the base from which they can improve themselves.

I think this is more likely to be accurate self-assessment than some
sort of failure. Most people figure out whether they can fight mobs
above their own level by looking at how well they do against mobs *at*
their own level. If they do badly, they tend to back up and look to
lower level mobs. I don't think anyone's out there killing termites
because they simply don't know they can kill bears; I think they've
more likely either tried and failed to kill bears, or decided they
just plain aren't interested in killing bears. While you and I may
think killing bears is ever so much fun and everyone should try it, we
really don't get to tell everyone else how to play the game.

> It's a problem of perception. You perceive content "below
> your level" to be worthy, and "just below your level" to be good, and
> content "above your level" to have to wait until you're ready.

I perceive content that looks like fun to be worthy, and I don't
recognise any authority on your part to tell me otherwise. If I'm too
low a level to do something, that's a goal. If I'm too high a level to
do something, that's your game sucking.

The main reason people do low level tasks is usually because higher
level tasks are either too difficult or not fun. Forcing them to do
those tasks anyway is not a model for success.