NWN2: XP caps discussion

[Ronan]

And having played on a server with functioning Dimret scripts, I can honestly say that even for no XP, I will still go explore areas and fight dangerous monsters for meagre reward, partly because it is in character for me to do so but primarily because, as you observe, it is fun.

The problem is, it eventually becomes totally OOC to do so. Why would people adventure, when there is no reward for doing so? Eventually my last PC became very un-adventury, because he had simply never found any of the things he'd gone looking for when adventuring (specifically magical knowledge, or gold to buy magical knowledge). Eventually he had near zero gold, and certainly did not want to use his last scrolls and potions fighting some monster somewhere in the wilderness for no reason at all. The result: people sit in an inn waiting for DMs to log on, and they can even start not following DM hooks if the DMs don't ever reward anything either.

I really just think we need non-sucky static content in ALFA2. I'm trying to make it as easy as possible for builders to reward things within our wealth standards. The wiki on how to use the wealth and xp standards tools should be up in a week or two.

[Fionn]

Ronan - totally agree that we 'want' non-sucky static content in ALFA2. My issue (and I think Mik's too) is that we don't believe it can be achieved 100% of the time. Static content (and perhaps DM awards) will exist that are low-risk/high-reward in order to allow low level PCs to get a leg up. High level PCs will figure out which ones missed some form of dimret (or a with enough servers, can bypass that). Worse are DMs that are in a hurry to play with CR15 mobs - lot of issues may cause XP/GP holes.

I agree that our focus should be on kick ass content that can't be exploited. I just feel that we should have a safety net. While it's suboptimal to allow OOC behavior because it doesn't reward enough to matter, at the end of the day metagaming is still against our rules. No cap/buffer/whatever is going to stop the behaviour or allegations. What it can provide is mitigation of the affect to others, along with a weekly aggregate report to Admin.

While it's not as good as perfect content, does it cost us anything much?

[Ronan]

No cap/buffer/whatever is going to stop the behaviour or allegations. What it can provide is mitigation of the affect to others, along with a weekly aggregate report to Admin.

Honestly, this is the idea I like the most. Just have gains over a certain amount be flagged in the logs. If we get central logging, SO many things will be easier.

While it's not as good as perfect content, does it cost us anything much?

Nope, which is why I like the idea of a soft cap if it does turn out we need a cap. Most importantly though, I think we need to keep our options open, and not make any "rulings" people might feel compelled to stick with. We don't know what ALFA2 will really be like at this point, we don't know how it will play. We can add caps to the XP/wealth standards scripts relatively easily with NWNx4, and remove them relatively easily as well.

[Mulu]

No cap/buffer/whatever is going to stop the behaviour or allegations. What it can provide is mitigation of the affect to others, along with a weekly aggregate report to Admin.

Honestly, this is the idea I like the most. Just have gains over a certain amount be flagged in the logs. If we get central logging, SO many things will be easier.

And if the gains were "legit," e.g. from a DM, then the PC gets to advance in wealth/level at a faster rate, with all the accusations of favoritism or twinking that goes along with it.

[Mikayla]

A "soft" cap means nothing nor does a hard cap set at an "unacceptable" level unless the amount immediately before it is considered acceptable (ie set the cap at 2000 which is "unacceptable" but make 1999 acceptable). Here is why:

A soft cap that acts as a flag is no different than the situation we have now; it just a different reporting mechanism and will result in more cases and investigations, not less, as reporting is automated.

A hard cap that is "unacceptable" that also results in investigations when people routinely approach it means nothing either - you are drawing a line in the sand, but the line is meaningless because you are telling people on either side they might be "wrong" and people on either side they might be "right." What is the point of drawing the line?

Some examples: We set a hard cap at 4000 XP/month and decide that this is "unacceptable." So, folks start hitting 3999/month. We say "thats PGing!". So, they back off and hit 3900/month. We repeat, "thats PGing" - and they back off again, and we repeat and so forth until finally we hit a number low enough that it does not concern us - and there we find the REAL cap, so why not set the number there to begin with?

If we never hit a number that does not concern us, then our problem would seem to be we lable anyone who gains a consistent amount of XP in a given time is a PGer, regardless of amount, be it 4000 XP/month or 40 XP/month - and thats ridiculous. People who regularly game for the same amount of time in campaigns with the same DMs often reap the same amount of XP in a given time frame - I know, because it often happens with me.

So, drawing a line in the sand, but leaving it open to question about whether people below that line are PGing or not does not solve any problems - there is no point to such a line.

Now, we can use the "safety net" model, which will catch run-away leveling, but that is generally not a huge problem - of all the things that ARE obvious, run-away leveling is the one everyone can see (and the one everyone makes noise about). The safety-net does not address any of the other problems at issue however, so its utility is limited.

[Ronan]

No cap/buffer/whatever is going to stop the behaviour or allegations. What it can provide is mitigation of the affect to others, along with a weekly aggregate report to Admin.

Honestly, this is the idea I like the most. Just have gains over a certain amount be flagged in the logs. If we get central logging, SO many things will be easier.

And if the gains were "legit," e.g. from a DM, then the PC gets to advance in wealth/level at a faster rate, with all the accusations of favoritism or twinking that goes along with it.

No cap is going to help in accusations. The PA may not be accusing anyone for hitting staying on the cap week after week, but you can be damn sure DMs will. You'd have to basically sell ALFA on fixed leveling rates before the DMs would agree to turn a blind eye to farming behavior, IMO. I've always been told the biggest problem in dealing with exploiters and PGers is getting the actual logs from the server. Seems like thats best delt with by DMA enforcement or a centralized logging system.

[Mulu]

Well, the other thing the cap does is set in code an "acceptable leveling rate" without making it a fixed rate that everyone gets and that doesn't require any oversight since it's automated. Since I know for a fact that different DM's here have different ideas about what leveling rates are acceptable, and that's going to mean different actual leveling rates depending on who your regular DM is (if any), a hard cap prevents the philosophical debate and creates an automatically enforced community standard.

I don't care so much about the PG'ing investigations since they don't affect me, though I certainly understand why Kayla does. The primary benefits I see in a hard, low cap are:
1. Maximum leveling rate set in code. No more jealousy/accusations based purely on leveling rate, since the max can be met legitimately.
2. Safety net in case of leaks, whether unintentional through spawns/statics or intentional through DM differences.
3. Fionn's Great Equalizer function (granted, this could be done without a cap, but it grew out of the cap discussion).
4. Server hopping won't net more xp. It will still net more DM time, which has it's own value.
5. PG'ing effectively neutralized, as it can't create greater rewards than just playing IC.

That seems like enough reasons to implement something that you admit would be easy to put in, and take out for that matter.

[Ronan]

Those seem like really, really minor problems to me. I've only seen 1) with Khondar, though I've only been a part of ALFA for 21 months.

The main disadvantage, as I see it, is that you remove some of the incentive for a lot of people to play, and you basically cater ALFA towards the players who play for roughly the amount of time as it takes to fill up that XP cap. Anyone who plays more than the cap is going to be risking his PC's life and limb for no reward, and thus will die faster than anyone who plays less. Everyone who plays less than the cap obviously will not be affected at all, unless they PG their way up to the cap each week or month or whatever.

So if you set the cap right at ALFA's median XP gain per week, you remove some incentive for half of ALFA to play. Of the half that is left, you empower the PGers, and do not affect the ones who do not PG. These consequences just seem unacceptable to me.

As admin I am trying to do what I can to create Faerun, and I frankly don't care if someone is jealous about someone else's leveling rate. I want the world to be consistant and fair, but that doesn't mean it will be fair to each and every individual PC or player. Some people roll 1s and some people roll 20s, its just the nature of the game. What I don't want are wildly different gain rates because one builder's or DM's vision of Faerun differs wildly from everyone else's. Fortunately most DMs seem pretty damn consistant on XP rewards (with the exception of ECL races), even without a viable DM XP tool. So that leaves statics as the biggest problem IMO, and if we can't get logging and reporting to quickly ID problem areas, then I agree a soft gain cap (stepped function) or a function which targeted an average gain rate (like the wealth standards) might work best, though I don't see why we'd apply it to DMed gains as well.

[HEEGZ]

First off, my new idea about how to handle the XP cap issue:
http://www.alandfaraway.org/phpbbforum/ ... 141#407141

Secondly:

Just a point.

The DMG tells us to award XP for overcoming challenges, which is not the same as "killing monsters".

Killing a bunch of random orcs who are only attacking you because you wandered into their home is not an event that advances a plot, and therefore by the DMG it would be quite legitemate to not award any XP for random monsters.

Now, if the monsters are tied to a static quest that the PC is participating in, then yes, they are a challenge and he gets XP for them, but that can be set by the static XP, not the monster XP.

***

That would leave us only XP from statics, which can be non repeatable, or at least non-repeatable in a given time frame.

And XP from DMs, the bulk of which ought to have some "Level x challenge x time" guideline with some optional RP XP.

Ronan got me pointed in the right direction and I think I have a viable concept for the new XP wand that allows DMs to award for RP, time, and challenge for PC level all in one award and with a simple and easy to use conversation. It is based on encounters, which the DM can define as killing creatures or persuading a stubborn NPC, etc. Once I've worked out the details I'll post what I've got.

I think Ronan's plan for static quests will address the problems there. We can definitely do something in regards to the XP cap issue, that is easy for DMs to follow, see my link above. As for your last comment about "level x challenge x time" with the option for RP XP, it is entirely doable and I spent the last 24 hours creating just such a conversation tool. More to come.

[White Warlock]

If you had pnp players who randomly waltzed off into the wilderness for no reason other than to kill whatever random monsters they came across, would you honeslty reward them XP for that?

Easy answer... yes.

The underlying goal of any PnP get-together, is to have fun... not to accomplish anything. Geez, really, it's just a friggin' game, and the goal of any game is to entertain.

You're argument is one i've heard countless times from people who will 'force' players to participate in a story they made. That's simply not my way, and i will 'intentionally' not participate in any campaign where a DM tries to force my character. I play these games to entertain myself, and other players, not to cowtow to a DM. And while many players prefer to just 'go along' so they can obtain the rewards a DM like that would provide to them, i'm not in it for the rewards, i'm in it for the entertainment... for the fun.

We should get XP for advancing the story, not for killing stuff.

THE STORY... whatever the frick that is. The problem here, Mayhem, is that the only story a DM knows, is his OWN story. He doesn't know of a player's story, nor can he monitor such to determine whether the PC is in character when he is 'romping through the forest to kill things.'

I am in agreement that players should keep their characters in-character, but everyone has different parameters for that, and thus it is ridiculous to pose restrictions. You don't know how they play, i don't know how they play... all we know is that they play.

So let them friggin' play and stop trying to control them.

[Mulu]

and you basically cater ALFA towards the players who play for roughly the amount of time as it takes to fill up that XP cap.

ALFA currently caters to those who play the most, as do really all PW projects. The result is that many of the rest leave out of frustration, since their PC's are irrelevant in the world. I think a cap would ultimately retain more than it would cause to leave, and retain those who are more interested in rp than xp.

[Mayhem]

I play these games to entertain myself, and other players, not to cowtow to a DM. And while many players prefer to just 'go along' so they can obtain the rewards a DM like that would provide to them, i'm not in it for the rewards, i'm in it for the entertainment... for the fun.

Now, I'm in it for the entertainment too. If anyone here isn't into playing the game for the entertainment, then I've got no idea what they are doing here. When I'm playing, whether it be as player or DM, I try to entertain the other players at least as much as myself. After all, if we all do it, we would all get back a 4 or 5 times the amount if entertainment that we had to put in.

But if you and your friends think going out and killing monsters is more fun than roleplaying a PC and trying to be part of a persistant, RP orientated PW in which monsters do not exist for your convenience, why on earth are you getting involved in ALFA, rather than just playing through the original campaign a few times in co-op mode, racking up the bodycount?

Seriously, ALFA is built on the basis that the roleplay is why we are here, not the random violence. There are plenty of other NWN servers that offer the random violence, why on earth do you want ALFA to be yet another one of them?

You want to go out slaughtering stuff for XP, gold, phat lewt and fun, and appear to think that rules designed to keep characters balanced in an RP orientated world are just getting in the way of the fun. That's fine, thats no problem, I'm not going to be judgemental about that in any way.

But if that is what you are looking for, why then, do you want to play in ALFA? I honestly don't understand.

Coming to ALFA and railing against the anti-farming restrictions is like going to Burger King and then trying to convince them to cook you fried chicken, when there is already a KFC right next door.

[Stormseeker]

Well i want to rp in the realms fighting monsters to save (insert lady,old man,town,kingdom, etc..) so i can be a hero.
What many people do here is fail to see the other side. How interesting would the fr books be if there was no fighting at all?
And players can have a good plot fighting "random monster" without a dm. Now once i kill of the neighboring orc tribe it would be nice if they was removed for a while...that way i can brag to the town how i "cleaned up" the neighbor hood.

[HEEGZ]

Back on topic please.

[White Warlock]

ALFA currently caters to those who play the most, as do really all PW projects.

I disagree. ALFA currently caters to those whose schedules allow them to participate in ongoing DMed campaigns. They are not, necessarily those who 'can' play the most, only those who find more reason to play more than others.

But if you and your friends think going out and killing monsters is more fun than roleplaying a PC and trying to be part of a persistant, RP orientated PW in which monsters do not exist for your convenience, why on earth are you getting involved in ALFA, rather than just playing through the original campaign a few times in co-op mode, racking up the bodycount?

You either didn't read my post, or you're insisting on posing a straw man so you can win an argument. I'm going to assume the former.

Seriously, ALFA is built on the basis that the roleplay is why we are here, not the random violence. There are plenty of other NWN servers that offer the random violence, why on earth do you want ALFA to be yet another one of them?

Stormseeker presented a very valid argument. The ALFA1 servers don't provide sufficient consequence to actions, therefore to you it 'looks' like random violence. When i was on a particular server, i was trying everything i could to try and resolve the spider problem in a mining cave... to no avail. There were always more spiders, no matter how many i killed. So, i killed more... and more... and more... and more. You want to call that farming, go ahead. I call that a flaw in the server for presenting a situation where i could not make a dent in the world without a DM present.

See, what you call random violence, i call something completely different. I said it already in my previous post... to you, the actions of a PC may look meaningless, but it may very well be meaningful to that particular player.

You want to go out slaughtering stuff for XP, gold, phat lewt and fun, and appear to think that rules designed to keep characters balanced in an RP orientated world are just getting in the way of the fun. That's fine, thats no problem, I'm not going to be judgemental about that in any way.

Umm, by the way you wrote that paragraph, i say you already posed judgement.

Coming to ALFA and railing against the anti-farming restrictions is like going to Burger King and then trying to convince them to cook you fried chicken, when there is already a KFC right next door.

That's just b.s., and you know it. Don't go off inferring things about people just because you want to win your argument, or want to shut people up. Stick to the topic and be civil. I, and others, presented valid arguments regarding the 'proposed' hard cap.

I think to remove farming, you remove the opportunity for farming. Farming is accomplished by repeatedly attacking repeatable spawns. Don't make spawns repeatable, or predictable, and you won't have farming. The underlying reason Mik has argued the xp cap is not to counter farming (which will then happen more often, due to everyone being given a green light), but to put an end to all the PGing allegations. I sincerely think she is wrong in this, and have presented arguments to substantiate my thoughts.