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

[Vincent Archer]

According to 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.

That was an old bone in the original thread. People kept trying to
shoehorn the achievement model into a standard xp model. With enough
whacking, the problem finally looks like a nail, the hammer is used
used to solve it, and then they tell me my hammer is a poor excuse of
a hammer.

We've both focused too much on one small aspect of the system though,
and the system works as a totality. So let's step back a bit, and see
why the system can't do what you want it to do...

> > 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?

And the system answer is: because you've proved yourself capable of
doing at least that already, and there's no need for doing it again
and again. If you've broken a world record at 9s95, doing 9s95 again
and again and the sport commentator will lament the fact that you're
not progressing, even if you won all those races.

That's the biggest, and most irreconciliable difference, between your
view of levels and mine (well, and mine, in that specific design, that
is).  You view levels as a reward for engaging in game activities. I
view level as an indicator of your game capacities.

"Your" level is an indicator of how long you've accumulated game
rewards. I am level 50, that means I've spent between 6 to 10 days
of /played time getting whatever rewards were the easiest to get
(for some), or most fun (for other).

"My" level is an indicator of how well I play the game. I am level
50, that means I've been to level 50+ places, I've fought creatures
that have 50 levels of tricks accumulated so I - probably - know a
skeleton requires a blunt weapon, and I can crowd control in mildly
complex situations, and I have enough equipment to survive in level
50+ areas.

That's the biggest and foremost difference. And that's why the
achievement awards cannot obey standard xp rules. A given level
is the guarantee that the player master at least the "easiest" set of
requirements. If you can repeat achievements, the easiest set of
requirements is "bottom feeding", i.e. repeatedly slaughtering
the easiest creature you can find until you get to max level.

> "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

And that's why levels in a game like WoW are poor indicators of a
player's abilities. In fact, they're so poor, in order to make them
significant, the game will tie as much of a player's abilities in the
level: your level determines what you can use, your hit point,
everything. And to be sure, the game has special safeguards that
cap a player's attacks on mobs that are more than 3 levels above
the character, because you're not supposed to be able at level 20 to
kill any mob above 23.

> 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.

That's because you view level as the enabler for content, and you
expect to be rewarded by the game for playing in the form of levels.
If that's your expectations, then yes, my level system sucks, because
it's not designed to do that at all. It's designed to measure what
you played, not how long.

Or, in other words, you can't cheat your levels by repeatedly doing
the easiest tasks, and reaping the same rewards as the guy who did
the hardest ones and fully mastered the game.

In a game like WoW, it's so easy that, for most players, the game
"starts at max level". Because, once you're at the max level allowable,
progression is done thru other means. Equipment, chiefly, which
requires an increasingly difficult set of encounters (easy dungeons,
max dungeons, heroic dungeons, small raids, large raid, difficult
raid, and so on).

> 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.

I'm not forcing them to do anything too difficult, or not fun. They
will engage in whatever strikes them as fun, and, if it is harder than
what they did before, then their ability will be recognised. But if it
is too easy for their expected mastery, then the game will recognise
that they have not progressed by doing so. Slaughtering rabbits as
a level 20 may be fun, but it doesn't make you better at playing the
game.

That's what the achievement system is supposed to do. Not reward, but
tell the other players that you've "mastered" the game up to level N.

This ties in what John Buehler says elsewhere in the thread. He doesn't
lament the existence of a level, per se. What he deplores is that the
game ties all your capacities into the level you have acquired, and
thus makes difficult to provide various rewards. If an activity expand
your abilities in game, it will be usually more rewarding than one that
doesn't, and if your level dictates your ability, then the most rewarding
activities are those that expand your level, and thus, it becomes
the yardstick by which people measure activities.

-- 
	Vincent Archer			Email:	archer at frmug.org

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