| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Display using:
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 19 Dec 2007 05:18 PM |
Frimble,
I don't have time for a full answer, but I do for a few points. First of all, I see that you are starting to walk the path of XP system design in that you are asking these questions. Second, the answers to these questions depend upon how you want your mod to perform.
My criticisms of your earlier design is that it disregarded the intentions of Vives' design. The most important of these for me is the ability for the system to accommodate a very diverse array of game playing styles.
Once you know what you want, I think it would be much easier for you to design an XP system. Then, you learn from experience when it is put into play and notice all the human behavior that you did not anticipate.
ok.. back to work... |
Famous last words:
Mykal> it's my new wireless router.
* > Mykal has quit (Ping timeout)
Vulpina> Hey!! IRC didn't boot m.....
* > Vulpina has quit (Exit: DarkMyst WebChat) |
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 19 Dec 2007 05:48 PM |
If you don't think it works, then feel free to write & code a system that does.
I've got far more important things to do for Vives 2 right now :)
I have to admit, theres no point having an xp system with no world to use it. I will of course be happy to attempt to write an xp system (anything to take my mind of those interviews), but there are some questions that I will need answering before I begin.
The first is linked closely to kalneil's point:
We are all learning all of the time. I can't even begin to compare my knowledge when I first started building for PWs to where I am now. I know the Vives guys/gals have at least as much experience as I, and in many cases, more. I think we can have faith that the team building Vives 2 has learned a lot since the start of Vives, including a lot about what was a very new and unique system. If the only issue is controlling the level plateau through the global XP pool then I think you've got nothing to worry about because they will have that in mind.
Henesua and Wicked Artist objected to my previous system because all classes were rewarded equally for every activity. I conceded to them the point that characters of different classes should receive different amounts of xp for a task depending on how much a character would realistically learn from the activity. Should the xp system require characters to use all of the abilities available to them in order to progress, or should they be able to progress using only some of their capabilities?
I personally am in favor of the latter option, as the former would be “a logistical nightmare”, requiring activities of all types to be available for completion at nearly every level. But really this is up to Ara, and any other builders (although I get the impression he’s working on his own).
The second question is: should xp be rewarded for the ends (completing a task) or the means (using the skill/spell)? I am in favor of the former, but either could be made to work.
Third: Once a player reaches the plateau at level 10 (or thereabouts) should they continue to progress slowly, or should they have no net gain of xp (including that subtracted from deaths)?
Finaly: The data for time in game given on the dirtnap league appears to follow an exponential distribution. Is this the case for all characters, or only for recent ones?
(1) Either (We have a build "Team" which implies I'm not the only one ;)).
(2) Both.
(3) Progression slowly.
(4) Has no relevance whatsoever.
On a sidepoint: Please stop referencing useless and inappropriate mathematical/statistical terminology. Part of the build team, has vastly superior knowledge on such matters, and are knowledgeable enough to know if and when we would need to use them.
- Ara |
Vives Screenshots!
|
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 20 Dec 2007 07:10 AM |
(4) Has no relevance whatsoever.
On a sidepoint: Please stop referencing useless and inappropriate mathematical/statistical terminology. Part of the build team, has vastly superior knowledge on such matters, and are knowledgeable enough to know if and when we would need to use them.
Why does the distribution of time in game have no relevance? If the 'average' level is to be determined by the system then depending on which 'average', the distribution could be very important. If you don't think the average used matters, then stop me if I'm wrong, but to me that implies each average has the same value, which as far as I am aware is a unique property of symmetric distributions, a category which player time in game does not come under. *carefully avoids using the word group*
Otherwise this would imply that the mean (for example) could be used. So if exactly half of all characters were level 1 and the other half were level 19 the system could be considered to satisfy the criteria that the average character level is 10. Perhaps this is the case? I can't tell.
Of course it's possible to create an xp system without knowing this, but I am sure a much better system can be found using this information. If this is not the case, then please explain why.
PS. If on the other hand you were referring to this: "But having xp from each source progress differently (I'm talking about every derivative too) does not make sense."
then I apologise, as this is a perhaps unnecessarily reiteration of a point. |
"Absolute precision buys the freedom to dream meaningfully." - Donal O' Shea: The Poincaré Conjecture. |
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 20 Dec 2007 09:34 AM |
(4) Has no relevance whatsoever.
On a sidepoint: Please stop referencing useless and inappropriate mathematical/statistical terminology. Part of the build team, has vastly superior knowledge on such matters, and are knowledgeable enough to know if and when we would need to use them.
Why does the distribution of time in game have no relevance? If the 'average' level is to be determined by the system then depending on which 'average', the distribution could be very important. If you don't think the average used matters, then stop me if I'm wrong, but to me that implies each average has the same value, which as far as I am aware is a unique property of symmetric distributions, a category which player time in game does not come under. *carefully avoids using the word group*
Otherwise this would imply that the mean (for example) could be used. So if exactly half of all characters were level 1 and the other half were level 19 the system could be considered to satisfy the criteria that the average character level is 10. Perhaps this is the case? I can't tell.
Of course it's possible to create an xp system without knowing this, but I am sure a much better system can be found using this information. If this is not the case, then please explain why.
PS. If on the other hand you were referring to this: "But having xp from each source progress differently (I'm talking about every derivative too) does not make sense."
then I apologise, as this is a perhaps unnecessarily reiteration of a point.
If we take all the aspects of the gameworld-to-be (Vives 2), then the XP system would have a low importance. Far more important would be, the writing/Design/History/DM plots/Roleplaying aids & mechanisms/Quests and so forth.
If we wanted to we could run plenty of models & statistical analyses, but this takes time which we do not have.
If people want to, then they can do all the analyses they want, and we'll take a look. We'd also have to check to make sure it was done correctly, again taking more time.
I, personally, don't care what average is used nor what distribution "time in game" follows. It's far too low on our list of priorities to be worth bothering with. In Vives 2 our current system will do a better job, especially with additional tweaks (some mentioned by kalniel for example)..... It will work similar to how it worked in Vives 1 a couple of years ago, which we have first-hand experience of.
So, yeah, we're still listening & watching for a fantastic idea to sweep us off our feet.... and I would love to see more suggestions. Looking into the database and compiling information, I will not do however ;)
- Ara |
Vives Screenshots!
|
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 20 Dec 2007 10:11 AM |
Yeah...ummm
I know I'm a "Jonny come lately" to this thread, and frankly I won't even PRETEND to understand half of what you guys are talking about here, but I feel compelled to reiterate something Ara touched on here, and that is this...
James42 turned me on to Vives about 3 years ago saying it was the RP game Nirvana we had both been looking and hoping for for a long while, I played it for a week and cancelled my EQ account the following month never to return. I'm not sure what numbers you folks are crunching here, but I will say this. If certain xp scenarios seem unfair or not up to snuff, or if a bard levels slower than a warrior, or WHATEVER the issue might be all I can say is "too bad". Life is rife with challenges , unfairnesses, and problems that need to be overcome by sheer wit, grit and intestinal fortitude. A RPG of this nature should be no different, in fact, in my humble opinion there should be MORE unfairnesses and problems, THAT is what makes a "hero".
Crunch those numbers all you want, tweak and turn them as you see fit, but never forget that the die hard fans of this world will be coming back to Vives 2 to see the artistic design of the builders, and immerse themselves in the storyline. Give us 1xp for every other monster we kill it won't matter.
That's my bit, sorry for the interruption,
Crunch on! |
|
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 20 Dec 2007 11:36 AM |
| I could easily write a system that would satisfy these criteria based on my previous function, but I can see there is no way I could persuade anyone to take the time to test it. The Vives 1 system it is. |
"Absolute precision buys the freedom to dream meaningfully." - Donal O' Shea: The Poincaré Conjecture. |
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 20 Dec 2007 11:47 AM |
I could easily write a system that would satisfy these criteria based on my previous function, but I can see there is no way I could persuade anyone to take the time to test it. The Vives 1 system it is.
What criteria? The ones I mentioned earlier in the thread? (Just need to clarify).
We can probably tell by just looking at it (the code that is) whether it will fulfil our criteria. The last function you came up with obviously didn't, and thus we did not pursue it. We don't even need to see the code.... just what it will do would more than suffice (minus jargon).
- Ara |
Vives Screenshots!
|
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 20 Dec 2007 01:23 PM |
You were right not to test that one. It wasn't designed to create the plateau you wanted. I could adapt it to fulfill the following criteria:
1) The average (mode) level of characters at any point in time =10 (or any number you like).
2) Slow gain in xp after level 10: Level 20 reached after an average (mean) of 2,000 hours in game.
3) Good party play rewarded over good solo play.
4) Both the use of skills/spells etc. and their effects (killing things, stealing things, discovering things) rewarded.
5) Different percentage xp gain for different builds (subject to correct numbers being chosen for the world in question).
6) Hypothetically a PC that gains xp entirely from one activity (other than RP) should gain xp at the same rate as a PC that gains xp entirely from any other activity (other than RP) so long as the two activities are equally 'in character' for that PC.
7) Hypothetically a PC that up until one point gains xp entirely from one activity and thereafter gains xp entirely from another activity, should continue to gain xp at the same rate as he would have done had he continued to gain xp from the first activity.
8) No significant advantage or disadvantage long or short term for any member of a party regardless of the levels of the other members.
9) Rates of xp gain will not change as the game world is expanded (subject to the conditions of 5).
These are all the criteria that come to mind, most of them can be changed, but I think this is what people want.
Ed. Aargh, Lisen has come online I'm for it now! :) |
"Absolute precision buys the freedom to dream meaningfully." - Donal O' Shea: The Poincaré Conjecture. |
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 21 Dec 2007 11:12 AM |
Kalniel says: If there are any such quirks of the Vives system that forces people to change the way they play for ill then it is worth seeing if you can achieve the same objective but with a mechanic that means they don't change the way they play. From the thread, it seems partying is again quite a core issue - whether that's an issue with coat-tailing or with a perception of eating into a quota ahead of time. So, my humble suggestion would be to keep the same objectives, but see what you can do about partying to achieve an even more satisfactory solution :)
Ok, I'd definately consider suggestions to address this issue.
I'd say many people have the perception that they get treated "unfairly" when they party up and "reduce" the size of their xp pool "prematurely" by partying up with PCs of a greater level than they are.
Thanks for succintly putting it that way Kal.
- Paul |
Purpose in life: finding better ways of allowing players to kill themselves. Repeatedly.
--
"...Cause he mixes it with love
And makes the world taste good."
--
<@James42> Lawful good isn't in your vocabulary, it's on your menu.
|
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 21 Dec 2007 11:36 AM |
Couple of comments:
2) Slow gain in xp after level 10: Level 20 reached after an average (mean) of 2,000 hours in game.
That's not a function of some formula, that's a function of the size of the xp pool that is available - more monsters, more things to kill and get experience from. More quests? More XP into the pool. Areas? Discovery XP... Yadda, yadda, yadda.
3) Good party play rewarded over good solo play.
How? Normally that would be handled by RP xp that is an additional source outside the normal XP pool
6) Hypothetically a PC that gains xp entirely from one activity (other than RP) should gain xp at the same rate as a PC that gains xp entirely from any other activity (other than RP) so long as the two activities are equally 'in character' for that PC
I don't agree. A 1-dimensional character ends up getting as much xp as a character who experiences many things? Nope. Definately don't agree.
But, if you want to create a PC who only does one thing (pick pockets, for example) then by all means, do so. He will still gain levels, only he won't gain levels as fast as a PC who picks pockets, travels to ruins to overcome the dangers and get the rewards and generally carouses his way around the other PCs
7) Hypothetically a PC that up until one point gains xp entirely from one activity and thereafter gains xp entirely from another activity, should continue to gain xp at the same rate as he would have done had he continued to gain xp from the first activity.
Again, I don't agree. New experiences = richer learning environment for that PC.
8) No significant advantage or disadvantage long or short term for any member of a party regardless of the levels of the other members.
In Vives, you have two ways of looking at it when partying up with or without a higher level PC. Either you:
(a) get smaller amounts of combat XP with much less risk
(b) get larger amounts of combat XP with a lot more risk
When you party up, you reduce risk greatly - at the cost of getting less XP because the challenge was not as hard.
So why do people percieve the system as being unfair to people who want to party up but don't because the are afraid that they will miss out on some xp?
9) Rates of xp gain will not change as the game world is expanded (subject to the conditions of 5).
When I look at the rates of XP gain by all the PCs, I find that it is a pretty consistent in Vives once you get past 100 hours IG. (oh, a few outliers by those who deliberately try to max their xp gain). When you have been on the server for 2000 hours and you bump into another player who has hit level 20+ in "only" 600 hours, you think "how did that happen so fast?" not realizing that the other player has been on the server for quite some time already.
- Paul |
Purpose in life: finding better ways of allowing players to kill themselves. Repeatedly.
--
"...Cause he mixes it with love
And makes the world taste good."
--
<@James42> Lawful good isn't in your vocabulary, it's on your menu.
|
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 21 Dec 2007 01:08 PM |
So why do people percieve the system as being unfair to people who want to party up but don't because the are afraid that they will miss out on some xp?
Let's say my level 7 character had never killed an Ettin before. If I was killing one alone I'd probably get, let's say, 60xp for the first one and it'd slowly go down, like 50xp for the second, 40 for the third and so on.
But my level 7 is partied up with a level 20 who killed hundreds of Ettins over the years, so we clear the whole area for 3xp per Ettin, and those kills are stored in the database for my character. The first time I kill an Ettin alone I'll only get, say, 10 xp for the kill because there are already 20 dead Ettins on my record - the ones killed by the high level char I partied up with.
My first character is sort of "screwed up" like that - I used to travel around with High levels a few times and she only gets minimum xp for creatures she has never managed to kill before - it is a little bit unsatisfying when you spend 20 minutes trying to trick a really bad creature and finally, close to a heart attack, manage to kill it and only get minimum xp because long ago as a lowbie you were following a guided tour through these areas. |
|
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 21 Dec 2007 05:54 PM |
Paul, Your comments with regards to points 6 and 7 I can relate to. These features do not encourage rounded characters it is true. However what they will do is ensure balance, leaving builders with more freedom to build a world how they choose without having to consider (as much) whether the world is 'fair'.
Ed. Removing point 5 from the list would allow systems that were even better balanced.
Personally I think balance is more important than realism. The game can become very frustrating if it is unbalanced, but adding this kind of 'realism' to a set of rules so abstract adds little to the game. If you are concerned about specialist characters being unfairly favored or becoming the norm, rest assured that NwN as a whole greatly favors generalist characters over specialists.
Also note that in their way these criteria also allow a wider variety of styles of play, even more so with point 5 removed. /Ed.
The other comments seem to suggest that the Vives system satisfies all of the criteria on the list that any system possibly could. I assure you this is not the case.
Ed. I will explain each point individually if you wish, but there is enough information in my previous posts to make clear how I would satisfy each criteria.
You also raise another point towards the end of your post. That of players familier with the server being able to gain xp faster than newcomers. This would not be the case with my system. /Ed.
Casa, Thank you, well said. |
"Absolute precision buys the freedom to dream meaningfully." - Donal O' Shea: The Poincaré Conjecture. |
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 22 Dec 2007 01:36 PM |
I thought this fitting for the discussion on hand:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0515.html |
Famous last words:
Mykal> it's my new wireless router.
* > Mykal has quit (Ping timeout)
Vulpina> Hey!! IRC didn't boot m.....
* > Vulpina has quit (Exit: DarkMyst WebChat) |
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 23 Dec 2007 09:22 AM |
So why do people percieve the system as being unfair to people who want to party up but don't because the are afraid that they will miss out on some xp?
Let's say my level 7 character had never killed an Ettin before. If I was killing one alone I'd probably get, let's say, 60xp for the first one and it'd slowly go down, like 50xp for the second, 40 for the third and so on.
But my level 7 is partied up with a level 20 who killed hundreds of Ettins over the years, so we clear the whole area for 3xp per Ettin, and those kills are stored in the database for my character. The first time I kill an Ettin alone I'll only get, say, 10 xp for the kill because there are already 20 dead Ettins on my record - the ones killed by the high level char I partied up with.
My first character is sort of "screwed up" like that - I used to travel around with High levels a few times and she only gets minimum xp for creatures she has never managed to kill before - it is a little bit unsatisfying when you spend 20 minutes trying to trick a really bad creature and finally, close to a heart attack, manage to kill it and only get minimum xp because long ago as a lowbie you were following a guided tour through these areas.
I see what you are saying, but on the other hand, you got the all the experience from hanging around a high level character completely risk free while they almost certainly did all of the work of killing the ettins.
If we are to change the system, the system must not allow those low level PCs who hunt around with high level PCs an unfair advantage with regards to xp gain over those PCs who accomplish the same thing themselves on their own.
I'm still waiting for a workable solution that can be combined with the decaying XP system.
(I have a couple of ideas, but I am still fleshing them out)
- Paul |
Purpose in life: finding better ways of allowing players to kill themselves. Repeatedly.
--
"...Cause he mixes it with love
And makes the world taste good."
--
<@James42> Lawful good isn't in your vocabulary, it's on your menu.
|
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 23 Dec 2007 09:37 AM |
Paul, Your comments with regards to points 6 and 7 I can relate to. These features do not encourage rounded characters it is true. However what they will do is ensure balance, leaving builders with more freedom to build a world how they choose without having to consider (as much) whether the world is 'fair'.
Then the system will never be fair. If you want a perfectly "fair" system, then give XP for every minute you are logged into the server. It's perfectly "fair", no one gets more than anyone else, progression can be controlled exactly the way you want it to be.
It's not going to happen. I want the system to create differences. If you have a PC who sits around all the time in a tavern lamenting their latest drama, you might earn some RP xp, but "G.I.Joe GoGetter" the barbarian hellraiser who slaughters orc armies for amusement before snacking on giants after lunch is going to level faster because they are out in the world doing things.
A "perfectly fair" system is a lot like the idea of communism. Great idea in a perfect world where everyone is a divine angel, but absolutely horribly wretched in any kind of practice whatsoever. A "perfectly fair" system removes all sense of achievement, thus there is no drive or incentive to excel.
I want to see players who choose to excel. (and in V2, we will make tweaks that will give a boost to RP xp award winners over those who earn most of their xp via the easier route of combat xp). I want to see players take risks to obtain rewards and if that means they level faster than someone who sits around complaining that they should be the same level for doing nothing, then so be it.
You also raise another point towards the end of your post. That of players familier with the server being able to gain xp faster than newcomers. This would not be the case with my system.
Unless you have a "perfectly fair" system (which is bad for at least the reason explained above, then this will always be true. A Player will always use the knowledge they have learned from previous PCs in order to navigate the world more easily. If I know where the quests are and how to solve them (see? I did it three times already with three PCs) then I can rush through those quests and get the rewards. Travelling to different areas for the discovery XP is much safer because I "know" which areas are safe, and which areas are dangerous until I reach level X, or have item Y, or spell Z - thus I can rush through those areas, almost risk free and gain the rewards quickly.
No system beyond a system that gives out XP at a metered rate will ever prevent that.
Vives will never have a metered rate system. |
Purpose in life: finding better ways of allowing players to kill themselves. Repeatedly.
--
"...Cause he mixes it with love
And makes the world taste good."
--
<@James42> Lawful good isn't in your vocabulary, it's on your menu.
|
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 23 Dec 2007 06:59 PM |
I was going to post something about hoping this post was finally dead, or beating a dead horse to death, but I saw something I'd like to comment on:
If you have a PC who sits around all the time in a tavern lamenting their latest drama, you might earn some RP xp, but "G.I.Joe GoGetter" the barbarian hellraiser who slaughters orc armies for amusement before snacking on giants after lunch is going to level faster because they are out in the world doing things.
But then you say:
I want to see players who choose to excel. (and in V2, we will make tweaks that will give a boost to RP xp award winners over those who earn most of their xp via the easier route of combat xp). I want to see players take risks to obtain rewards and if that means they level faster than someone who sits around complaining that they should be the same level for doing nothing, then so be it.
So while I think I agree mostly with all this, I'm trying to figure out what "excel" means. Because in the first, it seems to be beating the crap out of anything that moves. In the second, you seem to imply that RP'ing is at least as important. And trust me, I don't have a problem with someone who goes out all the time, attacking things, etc. being higher level than me. As someone who doesn't get on all the time anyway, I'm used to the low-to-mid level xp range, trust me!
But I am curious as to what it all means and where RPing does fall. I especially ask because there are some of us who happen to like sitting around in a tavern on occasion lamenting and RPing. I also ask because on occasion, I've been...shall we say, berated?...or at least questioned...as to why Cedrych sits around all the time when I was trying to RP him as quite cerebral and someone who never wanted to be a paladin anyway.
And I don't recall myself complaining. I'm not tryiing to make this personal, nor do I have a complaint. Merely curious.
thanks! |
The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for...
-- Ernest Hemingway |
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 23 Dec 2007 07:45 PM |
So while I think I agree mostly with all this, I'm trying to figure out what "excel" means. Because in the first, it seems to be beating the crap out of anything that moves. In the second, you seem to imply that RP'ing is at least as important. And trust me, I don't have a problem with someone who goes out all the time, attacking things, etc. being higher level than me. As someone who doesn't get on all the time anyway, I'm used to the low-to-mid level xp range, trust me!
Roleplaying is everywhere, or should be everywhere in a world like Vives. Whether sitting in a tavern lamenting on your latest drama, or exploring a dungeon and the dangers within, and anything in between and beyond.
What I think pdwalker meant was that PCs who actually go out and do stuff will benefit greater rewards than those who idle around. That doesn't have to be combat, it can also be exploration, doing quests, crafting, or anything you can come up with. A character who sits around chatting with his friends over a mug of beer isn't likely to learn as much as the character who goes out and faces the challenges and rewards the world sets out before him.
But I am curious as to what it all means and where RPing does fall. I especially ask because there are some of us who happen to like sitting around in a tavern on occasion lamenting and RPing. I also ask because on occasion, I've been...shall we say, berated?...or at least questioned...as to why Cedrych sits around all the time when I was trying to RP him as quite cerebral and someone who never wanted to be a paladin anyway.
And I don't recall myself complaining. I'm not tryiing to make this personal, nor do I have a complaint. Merely curious.
Roleplaying is not just chatting on some random spot in the world about some random subject. It seems like a lot of people see it that way, though. Roleplay is not just chatting for hours on end, and you can do it everywhere and incorporate it into everything your character does.
This doesn't mean standing around chatting is wrong and mustn't be done. It can often be interesting and lead to unexpected situations and revelations, as well as add to character depth and development. I'd say it's just as an important dimension to Vives as a roleplaying server as anything else is.
On the other hand, we're playing an adventure game here. When it comes down to it, we have adventurer characters who are supposed to go around the world and... well... adventure.
When it comes to experience, our characters, as adventurers, are going to gain it - to grow and learn - by adventuring: facing the challenges around the world, exploring hidden depths, solving quests, defeating enemies, creating artifacts, yadda yadda. A character who sits around talking will learn nothing like that - no more than I'm learning how to break the bones of my enemies in ten different places before they fall by sitting here and writing.
RP XP is something we gain regardless of our activities, and to be frank I've seen it given more often to PCs who go out and accomplish things rather than PCs who hang in the safety of the local tavern talking about some drama for the tenth time. This comes from a reasonable place: play the game once in a while, rather have your character rot in its own filth when it hasn't left the tavern for days on end. The problem is not that "just chatting" happens, it is, in my opinion, that it happens more often than when people actually go out and play the game for what it is supposed to be - adventuring!
So I do think it makes sense that PCs who set out accomplish things in the world will gain more experience than those who do not. This doesn't mean we should all make a "Steve the Barbarian Overlord" and beat the crap out of every monster in Vives - neither does it mean we should make a "Bob the Drunkard" and hang around the local tavern lamenting about dramas and doing nothing. Both are extremes that, I believe, may find a better home in a different server. Instead: roleplay, adventure, talk, develop your characters, solve quests, relax in taverns, raid a dungeon, explore the world, collect resources, craft items and weapons... NONE of these are exclusive activities which stand against one another, and ALL of them will get you XP depending on what/how you're doing. The system is not meant to be fair, it is meant to reward you depending on your own accomplishments in the game. |
WickedArtist: I think he needs a proper elf.
WickedArtist: A christmas elf!
Tasra: Any sort of elf that actually smiles ;o
Gasp! Scandalous!!! |
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 23 Dec 2007 10:28 PM |
I can only add one more thing to what WA has said.
RP XP in my mind comes about for a number of reasons:
- from character growth - things that happen to that PC affect how that PC reacts to certain things in the future and how consistently that happens
- from character interaction - again, from seeing a "believable" (if I can use that term loosely) PC and how that PC interacts with other PCs - are the interactions consistent or are they inconsistent?
- from story telling - The DMs set the backdrop and it is the PCs who tell the stories. A PC who consistently engages others in a story will earn the RP XP.
There are other reasons, but this is just what jumped into my head.
So yes, you can play a PC who sits in a bar doing nothing but interacting with other PCs and still gain levels - but it will not happen as fast as those who gain xp from other sources. |
Purpose in life: finding better ways of allowing players to kill themselves. Repeatedly.
--
"...Cause he mixes it with love
And makes the world taste good."
--
<@James42> Lawful good isn't in your vocabulary, it's on your menu.
|
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 26 Dec 2007 11:16 AM |
Paul, Your comments with regards to points 6 and 7 I can relate to. These features do not encourage rounded characters it is true. However what they will do is ensure balance, leaving builders with more freedom to build a world how they choose without having to consider (as much) whether the world is 'fair'.
Then the system will never be fair. If you want a perfectly "fair" system, then give XP for every minute you are logged into the server. It's perfectly "fair", no one gets more than anyone else, progression can be controlled exactly the way you want it to be.
It's not going to happen. I want the system to create differences. If you have a PC who sits around all the time in a tavern lamenting their latest drama, you might earn some RP xp, but "G.I.Joe GoGetter" the barbarian hellraiser who slaughters orc armies for amusement before snacking on giants after lunch is going to level faster because they are out in the world doing things.
A "perfectly fair" system is a lot like the idea of communism. Great idea in a perfect world where everyone is a divine angel, but absolutely horribly wretched in any kind of practice whatsoever. A "perfectly fair" system removes all sense of achievement, thus there is no drive or incentive to excel.
I want to see players who choose to excel. (and in V2, we will make tweaks that will give a boost to RP xp award winners over those who earn most of their xp via the easier route of combat xp). I want to see players take risks to obtain rewards and if that means they level faster than someone who sits around complaining that they should be the same level for doing nothing, then so be it.
You also raise another point towards the end of your post. That of players familier with the server being able to gain xp faster than newcomers. This would not be the case with my system.
Unless you have a "perfectly fair" system (which is bad for at least the reason explained above, then this will always be true. A Player will always use the knowledge they have learned from previous PCs in order to navigate the world more easily. If I know where the quests are and how to solve them (see? I did it three times already with three PCs) then I can rush through those quests and get the rewards. Travelling to different areas for the discovery XP is much safer because I "know" which areas are safe, and which areas are dangerous until I reach level X, or have item Y, or spell Z - thus I can rush through those areas, almost risk free and gain the rewards quickly.
No system beyond a system that gives out XP at a metered rate will ever prevent that.
Vives will never have a metered rate system.
Nice to see a coherent argument for a change. ;)
When I ask for a balanced and fair system I am not calling for 'Equality over Equity' but rather for 'equal oportunities' (a phrase the marketing department of my college seems very keen on). The Vives system is such that if the wrong monsters, traps, locks, easter eggs etc. are placed in the wrong places (or the right ones in the wrong places). Then two characters of different classes played equally well will gain xp at different rates. I propose using a system where the placement of encounters has a less significant effect on the rate at which characters gain xp. |
"Absolute precision buys the freedom to dream meaningfully." - Donal O' Shea: The Poincaré Conjecture. |
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 29 Dec 2007 02:39 PM |
I propose using a system where the placement of encounters has a less significant effect on the rate at which characters gain xp.
I confess that I don't see how that is possible.
I could give you a system where PCs of the same level, different classes would get the same xp for killing the same monster, or overcoming the same trap. Assuming we have just that, now let's go for a simplified use of this system
Let's now take two PCs, fighter A and Mage B chance upon, then righteously slaughter the hapless encounter - the system gives them the same xp for overcoming the creature in combat. So far, both PCs are now with the same amount of xp.
Have them go onto a second encounter - both get the same xp.
Third encounter - mage out of spells, fighter continues on, collecting xp.
The end result is fighter A advances while mage B plays catch up.
Of course if fighter A logs off and mage B finishes off that third encounter, they are now back to being equal.
Of course, this being Vives, we feel that Mages should not get so much XP from combat. After all, they are mages, not warriors with spells. Therefor our system gives the mage less XP for combat. On the other hand, in the Vives system, the mage gets addional xp from casting spells - after all that's what mages do.
So now we have a situation where we have unequal opportunities - the mage could cast spells outside of combat for whatever reason and earn xp, while the fighter does not/can not.
And, that is perfectly fine.
No system, outside of a time - metered xp system, will prevent differences in xp achievements. None. Fundamentally, the classes are different, giving them access to different opportunites that cannot make equal without making all the classes the same. |
Purpose in life: finding better ways of allowing players to kill themselves. Repeatedly.
--
"...Cause he mixes it with love
And makes the world taste good."
--
<@James42> Lawful good isn't in your vocabulary, it's on your menu.
|
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 30 Dec 2007 07:51 AM |
Fighters have a finite resource in much the same way as mages, namely hit points. They can't keep going indefinitely, only till they run out of healing potions. Of course a fighter can gain an advantage by spending more gold on these, but a mage can buy scrolls, so that works fine. In any case resting in available to both classes. A system where xp is only awarded for combat, and the same amount of xp is rewarded regardless of class is fair. 3.5 D&D uses this kind of system and I have not found any problems with the rewards in these tables so far.
Rewarding xp for other activities (such as disabling/springing traps or entering new areas) complicates things, but not impossibly. The bottom line is to reward xp based on the percentage resources a character is likely expend completing the task.
Rewarding xp for casting spells poses more of a problem, as this imposes no risk outside of combat. I can think of a few ways round this, but I will leave this point for now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xp rewards based on class however requires a new factor to be taken into consideration. Values of percentage gain can be chosen so that each class gains more xp for doing what their good at. The system can still be fair, but only if the world permits it...
Lets say rogues get 100% xp for picking locks, disarming traps, conning passers by etc. Their xp rewards from other activities will be less. This is all fine in principle, but what if there are no locks to pick?
What if all of the traps only deal d6 damage? A level 5 rogue can't be rewarded much for a trap that poses so little threat.
Or what if every citizen has a sense motive check of +5? You could have a level 3 character which is an extremely capable con artist, but he will still run a huge risk of being caught even with a maxed out bluff skill, skill focus: bluff, and persuasive feats.
Unless the builders are going to consider opportunities for each class as they create the world, a system where all classes gain the same xp from a given task is going to be more balanced (Although a perfectly fair system is impossible).
Personally, I think this also allows for a greater diversity of characters. "Why does sneaky halfling rogue get so much xp for fiddling with lock when half-orc rogue smash chest so much quickerer?" |
"Absolute precision buys the freedom to dream meaningfully." - Donal O' Shea: The Poincaré Conjecture. |
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 30 Dec 2007 10:21 AM |
Frimble,
It seems obvious you have never had any real experience with managing a persistent world before.
You've not yet made one concrete suggestion that I think actually has practical value. Perhaps it is just that I am not smart enough, but your idea of making everyone the same will simply not work in practice in an nwn persistent world do to the fact that characters are always different and have different abilities.
As it stands, We'll make some tweaks to the party xp when in groups and some other tweaks and take it from there.
- Paul |
Purpose in life: finding better ways of allowing players to kill themselves. Repeatedly.
--
"...Cause he mixes it with love
And makes the world taste good."
--
<@James42> Lawful good isn't in your vocabulary, it's on your menu.
|
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 30 Dec 2007 12:52 PM |
Frimble,
It seems obvious you have never had any real experience with managing a persistent world before.
I can't argue with that, I have had no experience with NwN DMing whatsoever. 
I have designed a lot of strategy board games though.
You've not yet made one concrete suggestion that I think actually has practical value.
I have only really made one suggestion so far. It is a complete system, few ideas from it could possibly be incorporated into the current vives system.
In fact, most of the system is not even my own. It is a modified version of the 3.5 D&D system with the equations altered to take account of issues specific to a PW.
Perhaps it is just that I am not smart enough, but your idea of making everyone the same will simply not work in practice in an nwn persistent world do to the fact that characters are always different and have different abilities.
This would be the case in any system involving an xp 'pool'. It would not be in case in a purely challenge rating based system. |
"Absolute precision buys the freedom to dream meaningfully." - Donal O' Shea: The Poincaré Conjecture. |
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 31 Dec 2007 10:59 AM |
Perhaps I should explain how I know my system will be balanced.
Consider a system where performing certain activities will grant an xp reward. The first reward a character gains will be of 27,500xp, the next 13,750xp, then 6875 and so on. When a character respawns, xp from the last two rewards are removed, and the character progresses as if he had never received those rewards.
In this system a characters xp total will be as follows:
0xp no rewards
27,500xp 1 reward
41,250xp 2 rewards
48,125xp 3 rewards
51,562xp 4 rewards (rounded down)...
...55,000xp infinite rewards. (Ignoring rounding)
So this is a system where a character can never reach level 12 (or level 11 if all rewards rounded down).
This system, however has the disadvantage that difficult activities are not worth a characters time so that, for example, killing rats grants as much xp as killing trolls. Suppose instead, that multiple rewards are received for more difficult challenges, perhaps a number equal to the challenge rating of the task (for all activities, not just combat) or the square of the challenge rating.
Still, no character can reach level 12.
You could argue that some characters would gain xp more slowly, if they were worse than other characters at performing the activities which were rewarded due to their class abilities. However this would not be a fault in the system itself, just in what activities were being rewarded.
In any case, the system would remain reasonably fair. There would be no risk of characters reaching level 20 in 19 hours. As a worst case scenario, a player familiar with the world would know which actives had been given disproportionately high challenge ratings, but they would still only be able to reach level 10 in 3 hours. Unfair, but not uncontrollable.
This is a terrible system, as it basically puts everyone at level 10 and leaves them there, but it illustrates, how a balanced system can be created where everyone is rewarded in the same way.
Creating a system based on this principle where players can also progress indefinitely (by choosing a progression that remained between 45,000xp and 55,000xp for some time and then increased just slightly faster than xp was lost from respawns), would require a certain amount of care to be taken when choosing challenge ratings for activities, but would still allow a large margin for error without unbalancing the system.
PS. The reason I wanted to know about the distribution of time in game, was so that I could have the point at which level 10 is reached, before the average (modal) time spent by characters in game, and the point at which level 11 was reached after this time to ensure the majority of players are around level 10 (based on estimations of how fast players can complete encounters). The data on the dirtnap league, however suggests an exponential distribution, so this might not be possible.
Otherwise just to be sure, I could get the system to check time in game itself. However I fear it may be beyond my scripting capabilities do this, let alone make such a script efficient. |
"Absolute precision buys the freedom to dream meaningfully." - Donal O' Shea: The Poincaré Conjecture. |
|
|
|
Re: A Gnomish Essay on xp Functions
Posted: 31 Dec 2007 12:04 PM |
Paul/Others with more knowledge of the system than me:
I know this has been discussed earlier in the thread, but I had an idea and wonder if it made any sense.
One of the frustrating things for me (though I completely understand the reasonong for it, as Paul made a good argument earlier) is that when I'm in a large party and kill something, I get only a small XP reward for it, but then when I come back myself (perhaps much later or simply getting lucky or whatever), the system rewards me as if I've killed it for the xth time and get much smaller xp, which can be deflating if I've done something clever/tricky/lucky to beat it.
I suspect this would be a huge pain but is it possible to track kills by levels, such that if you were in a party with 50 levels, you would get X xp for killing a monster, then later if you were in a party with 10 levels (perhaps by yourself), you would get xp as if kiling it for the first time? Then each kill in each different level party would track differently?
So, in a large party of 50 levels, I get xp for killing a dragon. If that same party comes back and kills another dragon of the same type, I get xp as if kiling it a second time, then a third, etc.
But, if I killed the dragon in a smaller party (say total of 10 levels, for example), the system would count me as killing it for the first time and I would get appropriate xp, then xp reward would degrade as that same party of 10 levels killed another dragon, etc.
This seems an interesting way to represent the different kinds of experience one might get between killiing a monster in a larger group and by one's self. It would seem to be a good way to limit the sort of "free xp" a lower level gets when partying with a large group, but still preserve the reward and satisfaction of killing a tough monster finally by yourself.
Maybe you could set up different xp categories for each monster? So, for a dragon, maybe 1-20 level track, then 21-40, and 41+? A goblin might have a category of 1-3, and then 4+, with the xp differences being much smaller since the challenge is so much smaller to begin with?
I haven't really thought this through. Just throwing it out.... |
The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for...
-- Ernest Hemingway |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|