NWN2: XP caps discussion

[Amar]

*coughs*
Idea

Banking XP.

Whenever a DM would award a player more than their 200 XP in a night, take the remainder of that XP, cut it in half (rounded up). and "Bank" it.

The bank would be a DM-access wiki where DMs and bank XP to a character, leaving a note of XP-gain and the reason for it. The player can request at a later night when running into a DM to be given some of their "Bank." Set a max bank of their current level *500 (half of what they need to level).

simple, effective, noone is out much DM-award XP, and little additional scripting required. Since its a wiki new characters could be added on a whim, as well as an up-to-date log of character history would be created this way without much effort.

[Fionn]

I can't support a system that enables someone to PG their ass off for a week or two, then reap the XP for the next month while they RP. If we have cap (I still prefer a consistant nudge over a stop-gap cap), it is because somebody has exceeded what we deem to be legitimate awards. Delaying those awards simply legitimizes them over time.

[fluffmonster]

There would be no banking of XP.

[HEEGZ]

If we did go with a xp cap, I would want it to be monthly, not weekly. Also, WW has mentioned a difference between a hard and soft cap. A hard cap is an amount that PC's can routinely hit without any problems whatsoever. A soft cap is an amount that if routinely hit would eventually lead to inspection of logs for playing habits, etc. Basically, if a cap is implemented it needs to be clear if it caps permissible xp gain, or if it is a threshold at which player behavior would be looked into.

To clarify my comments about RP scripts earlier, I would definitely like to see them put into each server. However I would not want it to be mandatory for DMs to use them.

Also, I'd like to mention two more things. First, that I think a validation system would be more effective then a xp cap. Two, that I would prefer to not have a cap or a validation system. The reasoning for this is that I think we can come up with a XP tool for DMs to use that prevents the system from being easily abusable. Ronan thinks he can accomplish this, as he's stated many times, and with what I know about it I'm inclined to try it first before implementing a new cap system, etc.

[Ronan]

The term "soft" cap generally refers to a point after which continued advancement is severely diminished, by some function that reduces rewards past a certain point.

Ronan thinks he can accomplish this, as he's stated many times, and with what I know about it I'm inclined to try it first before implementing a new cap system, etc.

Heh, well, we can prevent XP from being given out any other way exept for the XP tool, but DMs could still intentionally abuse the tool. Or get pissed at being forced to use a tool they may not agree with. Or players could still farm bugs, broken spawn points, etc.

[HEEGZ]

I'm not sure how to accurately label my point, and I use the terms soft and hard fairly loosely. The idea is that there are two completely different viewpoints on what a "cap" actually means. On one side, it is that a player can reach the cap continuously with no fear of reprisals. On the other side is that players should rarely, if ever, reach the cap. Routinely doing so would call for a closer examination of player behavior. For the record, monthly caps are better than weekly caps.

[White Warlock]

Actually, this soft cap mentioned by Ronan is an interesting possibility. As it seems exceedingly likely this community will still be subjected to witchhunts re: xp, regardless of whether a hard cap is implemented or not, why not consider other options?

I think there are two main things to consider. One is the character (race adjusted) level, and the other is the amount of xp obtained within a given time period.

On the first part, we need to realize that higher level characters simply get more xp in a shorter time. At the same time, they have to acquire quite a bit more to go up in levels. So, any examination of this should consider the rise in levels. Fionn mentioned one approach, which i cannot recall at the moment. I'll return to this.

Let's discuss this possible soft cap, in which xp is halved at a certain point, quartered at another. If we were to set an 'arbitrary' 1000xp a week soft cap, xp over than that can be divided. 1001-2000xp is halved, 2001-4000xp is quartered, and 4001xp and on is divided by eight. In this way we do not deny people xp, but we build into the system a way of tapering xp off, so that xp is harder to accumulate (and thus far more 'work') as you veer further from the norm. Abusers will have to make themselves very obvious if they want to 'exploit' the system... and the evidence is still there if the admin is inclined to investigate something.

Okay, returning to what exactly should the soft cap be... one simple consideration would be making the monthly soft cap equal to the experience required to reach next level. In this way, there are no subtractors from someone making one level a month (an exception should very likely be considered for the first four levels, in which two levels a month can be achieved).

Well, that's all i want to contribute to this discussion. Understand i'm really still not keen with this whole scene, but i would far prefer a soft cap to a hard cap. After all, as this community has clearly demonstrated by these discussions... the witchhunts will continue, no matter what we devise.

[Ronan]

Actually, this soft cap mentioned by Ronan is an interesting possibility.

Well, Fionn mentioned it first, but its a pretty well-known solution to this sort of thing.

On the first part, we need to realize that higher level characters simply get more xp in a shorter time.

That would depend on the DM, really. If ALFA ever gets a good XP tool that all DMs use, then maybe it will be more standard. But from my experiencing being DMed all across ALFA and asking others what DMs have given them, in MOST cases experience gain seems independant of level. And if people say: "OMG we need a cap, our DMs are so crappy they can't even all follow the same standards!!1", then I'd say we need to give them usable tools. Just like the wealth problems, of course DMs don't award consistantly when you don't give them concise guidelines and/or tools that aren't nigh-impossible to use. ALFA's current XP wand is a POS, plain and simple.

Well, that's all i want to contribute to this discussion. Understand i'm really still not keen with this whole scene, but i would far prefer a soft cap to a hard cap. After all, as this community has clearly demonstrated by these discussions... the witchhunts will continue, no matter what we devise.

You know, this may sound odd, but I've never seen a witch-hunt in ALFA. I've seen people go after a few specific individuals, seemingly sparked from PGish behavior that annoying a DM or team. But mostly it seems like its paranoia OF a witch hunt than actual witch hunt.

What I'm wondering is how many of these miffed DM teams actually care that the accused PC is gaining faster than everyone else, or if they care about the OOC behavior PGing requires. I know I'd be more of the later sort, and no caps will fix that.

[Keith Mac]

After much discussion of which most is on other threads it is evident to me that this community will certainly never agree on on how to impliment a hard or soft XP cap based on an actual number be it per week, month or day etc. That leads me to recanting the previous option and proposing that we tweak or accept the DF system. Are there any drawbacks aside from having to make a few posts here and there?

Before being validated for level 4 you must submit a Bio to your home server's DM team at which point they will start a PC thread for your character(assuming it hasn't already been started by a zealous DM) and you level four advancement will have a clocked in date ingrained into this thread that can be observed by DM's and higher up's.

If you move to a new server and plan to stay there you need to do your homework first and ask the thread be moved to said server, and possibly you could have two server teams with the same thread. In this case information should be shared.

Advancement from level four onward can only take place at a maximum of once in any given month and needs to be reported into said thread by which ever DM validates the PC. This will ensure records of advancement are available.

RP scripted XP mandatory for all servers although it is not mandatory for the DM's to "use it". (If a dm chooses not to use it they should be aware of the fact that it should be cleared when they do so)

No static combat XP(Keep in mind that for combat your RP scripted XP will be running and hence you are still getting XP for participating in killing the whole nest of Spiders) or a sever system of diminished rewards (ie; First time Kill XP only and then zero or 1 xp afterwards for static spawn kills)

DM awards to be simple and consistent(25 -100 XP per RL hour for regular sessions, 10-25 XP for on the spot exceptional RP, and 200 additional XP per session for long campaigns on top of the 25-100 per hour) and should be in addition to the scripted RP XP.

This proposal would need to keep level validation, but arguably would still share the first proposals fix of no cries of farming, no cries of unfair rewards but with enough room for true unbalanced PC advancement which is what we should strive for. Also this proposal requires what I consider to be limited work on the part of the DM in that the DM will have to validate and make small postings in the server's DM forum. This is not too much to ask and in my opinion should be a standard(but that is another discussion). Also it requires players to take a interest in their toon enough to at least write a Bio for their server team to keep on file for aiding DM events/decision/updates etc. which I also think should be a standard and not too much to ask for from a level four PC(again that would be another discussion).

From both sides of the fence, of which I sit on neither (The no-cap and the hard-cap) what problems/concerns would you have with this system? I only continue this topic discussion because I realize that ALFA needs to come to a fair compromise for the different views on many topics and we need to do so in a way that won't begrudge our player base one way or the other. Our goal should be to come up with rules that do not inhibit true adventurers/players who feel confined by caps and also to allow the community members who seem to be enthralled with fear on an "unfair playing field" to focus on what is really important which is IG fun! What everyone needs to realize is that this can only be done by compromise. Both sides of any issue will always have intelligent arguments against any extreme lean.

[Fionn]

Well, that's all i want to contribute to this discussion. Understand i'm really still not keen with this whole scene, but i would far prefer a soft cap to a hard cap. After all, as this community has clearly demonstrated by these discussions... the witchhunts will continue, no matter what we devise.

You know, this may sound odd, but I've never seen a witch-hunt in ALFA. I've seen people go after a few specific individuals, seemingly sparked from PGish behavior that annoying a DM or team. But mostly it seems like its paranoia OF a witch hunt than actual witch hunt.

What I'm wondering is how many of these miffed DM teams actually care that the accused PC is gaining faster than everyone else, or if they care about the OOC behavior PGing requires. I know I'd be more of the later sort, and no caps will fix that.

Actually, I'm betting if we make OOC PGish behavior so unrewarding that you have to *seriously* abuse things to get a leg up, we'll see a drastic decrease in people caring about others' toons. Those few that do manage to get past a 'soft cap' (via OOC/meta behavior) will be pretty clear in any log review, so the ARs don't have to take much time.

I'd oppose anything as kludgey as a stepped demarcation - simply have an algorythm that skews all awards towards [1000/wk]. Those that normally only see 50 might get 100 (2X), those that normally get 2500 might get only 1500 (while technically unlimited, there would be an effective max as the dimret approaches 0). The numbers aren't as important as the concept that the harder you work the system, the less it rewards.

The soft-cap will thus enable us to script reasonable rewards that can't be abused in the short term, but can be used infinitly over the long term. A road patrol quest that gives 50XP in an hour won't ever need to be cut off, but a PC that hits it non-stop 40-60 hours a week (plus his regular DM'd sessions) will see it become less and less rewarding.

[Mulu]

Okay, I like Fionn's idea too.

Keith, the primary problem with DM validation is that it requires constant human intervention. I played on Daggerford for a long time, and in that time I saw both PC's that didn't get validated for weeks on end, and PC's that advanced faster than one month/level, in fact one in particular advanced at about twice that rate. So, simply put, DM validation doesn't work. All it does is cause more problems due to misapplication by DM's. *Any* system that relies on DM's will fail, our history shows that time and again.

[White Warlock]

Agreed Mulu. Keith, we need to relieve DMs of additional tasks, not add to them. I agree very much with the present attitude that DMs in ALFA shouldn't have to feel obligated to perform strip searches or level validations. With as many DMs as there will be in ALFA2 (and are presently in ALFA1), we just can't 'effectively' do level validations anyway. It will all just be a farce and an opportunity for DMs to clash about style.

ALFA needs to ensure DMs can be on board in record time. That means they need to be acclimated 'quickly' to what's going on in their particular server, they need to be 'clearly' told what they can and cannot do on that particular server (so as not to trip up other DM campaigns), they need to immediately receive training in the DMclient and the custom tools ALFA provides, and they need to feel free to focus on 'entertaining' the masses. Anything else is just baggage.

[Keith Mac]

First of all I would like to be clear that I could care less if we have any XP/level cap. I would prefer all of the onus to be burdened upon the builders and DM's to adhere to a certain set of principles. I repeat: Standards should be placed upon BUILDERS and DM's for creation and rewards, and end their. Only exploits/cheating within said engine should be investigated if need be. If something fell through the cracks and got exploited then each seperate issue should be dealt with on a case by case issue. I feel the same way in regards to wealth issues. (Even more so) It is clear that my view is shared by many but not all and it isn't easy to gaugue where the majority sits.

I'm not sure a tool can be created to award XP the way Fionn has described nor that we could agree on what the median targeted sum would be agreed upon. If in fact it could and does get scripted and the math can be agreed upon then of course I would be a proponent as it sounds in theory to be easy and fair. I reiterate however that I feel it is highly unlikely that ALFA as a whole would come to terms.

I'll address a few items of concern based on my continued assumption that "numbers" will not be agreed upon and that the community as a whole will not let down their guard for players, concentrating on developing standards for builders and DM's in regard to what is acceptable IG for rewards.

Keith, the primary problem with DM validation is that it requires constant human intervention. I played on Daggerford for a long time, and in that time I saw both PC's that didn't get validated for weeks on end, and PC's that advanced faster than one month/level, in fact one in particular advanced at about twice that rate. So, simply put, DM validation doesn't work. All it does is cause more problems due to misapplication by DM's. *Any* system that relies on DM's will fail, our history shows that time and again.

Constant human intervention is a huge leap IMO. To have to seek out a DM's approval once a month just isn't game breaking. If players were getting validated more then once per month, in this system the DM would be accountable and repremanded if need be. There would be a check and balance system that would be recorded in the DM forums for DMA etc. to review. That argument is not valid. DM validation from what I have seen (And I have played in probably the least populated times on ALFA) didn't cause any strife. It certainly is not a lot to expect a DM to write a simple post and to check on the leveling rate of PC's that have obtained any levels above fourth. As I have stated before, these threads should be mandatory in any event. The only valid argument so far against DM validation would be the scenario that a Player could go for weeks before obtaining the IG rendevous with a member of the DM team for any given server. I understand this could cause some heartache but simply have not witnessed it. I guess we would have to come up with a fallback system to aid players who may get caught in such a LIMBO. Maybe we allow player retention staff heads/PA etc. the ability to Validate under this extreme condition and have them post the reason for doing so in the appropriate dm forums for further review?

I agree very much with the present attitude that DMs in ALFA shouldn't have to feel obligated to perform strip searches or level validations

I agree also, but I also see a reason to compromise if need be. If it is necessary to put other members of the community at ease by implementing a simple level validation system so be it. It really isn't a big deal. Most players will reach level up when rewarded from a DM anyways, especially after fourth.

Keith, we need to relieve DMs of additional tasks, not add to them

I personally do not see this as an additional task. As a DM I would prefer each PC at the very least who has reached a certain level to have at the very least a small thread to discuss plots/bio/advancement. C'mon now.

With as many DMs as there will be in ALFA2 (and are presently in ALFA1), we just can't 'effectively' do level validations anyway

No matter how you slice it, you need to have active DM's and Builders to have a persistant world. Level validations are a miniscule portion of what a DM would have to take on as part of their role. If we are having a problem with getting DM's IG to wave a wand then we are having much much bigger problems so I don't buy this either.

ALFA needs to ensure DMs can be on board in record time. That means they need to be acclimated 'quickly' to what's going on in their particular server, they need to be 'clearly' told what they can and cannot do on that particular server (so as not to trip up other DM campaigns), they need to immediately receive training in the DMclient and the custom tools ALFA provides, and they need to feel free to focus on 'entertaining' the masses

I agree. A level vaildation system which mandates postings in DM forums in respect to each PC who obtains level four and their respective advancement beyond will only aid this.

[HEEGZ]

Keith Mac: I came to the same conclusion pretty much. Not interested in a XP cap, however, I have also come across several issues with trying to enforce the DF system across ALFA. I think we could actually prevent the need for any sort of system like this by getting all of the DMs on the same page. This assumes that static quests and RP XP scripts aren't abusable/broken.

I am no longer really that keen on using one of these types of systems as I think there are better ways of doing things while making life easier for the DMs in the process. I'll post more when I have a better handle on what I'm working on.

[Fionn]

I am no longer really that keen on using one of these types of systems as I think there are better ways of doing things while making life easier for the DMs in the process. I'll post more when I have a better handle on what I'm working on.

Agreed while things are working. Any 'capping/bumping' system should be soley for instances where the builder/DM standards are not working. I believe, and I think history will back me up, that any system can be gamed. I'd rather focus on playing the game, and let the system react to those gaming the game :)