Standards: XP Award Rate

[I-KP]

Regarding Sand's post in Standards:

OK, now I know this topic is done to death in ALFA but please bear with me as I trawl though the maths.

I noticed whilst playing on TSM that the XP rate seemed very low. My PC rarely enters combat, so I've not noticed this before. I logged onto BG and did some testing, with a level 1 PC and a Level 7 PC who were both on. The results of combat XP awards were as follows:

Lvl 1 PC vs CR 0.5 = 5xp
Lvl 1 PC vs CR 1.5 = 13xp
Lvl 1 PC vs CR 12 = 133xp (impossible victory in reality)

Lvl 7 PC vs CR 0.5 = 0xp
Lvl 7 PC vs CR 7 = 38xp
Lvl 7 PC vs CR 12 = 136xp (impossible victory in reality)

These struck me as very low, lower even than exodus seemed to reward.
So I looked further, and found this equation as the calculation of combat awarded XP:
http://www.alandfaraway.org/node/433

putting the figures of the above combats into this equation we get
Lvl 1 vs CR 0.5 = 8.84 (9)
Lvl 1 vs CR 1.5 = 38.26 (38)
Lvl 1 vs CR 12 = 310.89 (311)
Lvl 7 vs CR 0.5 = 1.32 (1)
Lvl 7 vs CR 7 = 64.28 (64)
Lvl 7 vs CR 12 = 310.89 (311)

As a point of comparison re the above highlighted quote: I remain subject to correction here but as I understand it Exodus has recently doubled all XP awards and now starts all new characters at 3rd Level. If Exodus was the slowest progressing PW known to NWN2 it has probably now ceded that particular honour to ALFA.

Thorny issue this, XP award rate; a battlefield well trodden by the innumerable feet of many-a-NWN2 PW game. I’m not going to trudge in and churn up the mud further still but RP XP awards are all some players ever see (for one reason or another, and not always by choice); try to keep this in mind when weighing the merits of increasing the awards for the hack’n’slashers.

[Swift]

If we reward lower than our own guildelines say we should, then we messed up somewhere along the line.

[dirsa]

just as a side-note on xp gain - at least on bg xp gained for a creature is also dependent on wether the killer is in a party or not... as example - pc1 would get 5xp for killing a goblin solo, but if pc1 groups up with pc2 and they both kill same goblin they each will get 8xp for the act. i believe it was implemented some time back to encourage going out in groups.

[Blindhamsterman]

[quote="dirsa"]just as a side-note on xp gain - at least on bg xp gained for a creature is also dependent on wether the killer is in a party or not... as example - pc1 would get 5xp for killing a goblin solo, but if pc1 groups up with pc2 and they both kill same goblin they each will get 8xp for the act. i believe it was implemented some time back to encourage going out in groups.[/quote]

while nice, it makes no sense however.... as the challenge would be significantly lower in that case, pretty sure on TSM its the other way and exp is based off of i guess the highest PCs level in the party as while in groups I've always noticed less exp than when alone.

The mentality is nice, but it doesn't make sense. Having loot dropped be based on party size wouldnt be such a bad idea if it isn't already done like that, but exp increasing for being in a party? :S nah don't like it, a CR4 creature in theory is designed as a challenge for a party of the appropiate level anyway, and the DMG mentions if the party is larger then exp decreases if its smaller it increases, always assumed thats how it was here too.

p.s. I like groups, groups are good, but groups of 4 or 5 at most, not groups of 8 or 9 which occasionally happens (unless its a climatic final battle type event, such as a few that have happened in recent times, in which case they're cool!)

[paazin]

I remember there was some discussion on this a few years back. Not sure if the system was altered:

http://www.alandfaraway.org/forums/view ... 67&t=40677

[rorax]

I do not think we should look to other places and games.

Each game and community are entitled to do what fits for themselves. I never played Exodus, but i remember a while go their campaign was "new PCs start at level 2". Now you claim that they upgraded it to level 3 and doubled rewards.

Maybe it's their way to try and be more appealing to the masses.


Personally, i like the current advancement rates in game. It's sane and give meaning to leveling. It seems that the overall approach of ALFA is balanced, both in leveling and in rewards, and it's nice we don't see people around with epic levels and +5 gear.

Our highest level PCs been playing for nearly two years now, and i think they are exactly in the point they should be. (And that's VERY far from level 20, if you calculate XP and not just the number of levels, they are not even half way).


According to Heegz's guide(and i am not aware curm change it) . DM awards should be limited to 1K per week. After level 4 , gaps between leveling should take at least a month.

The guide is here:
http://www.alandfaraway.org/forums/view ... 11&t=42544


I think that's what players and DMs should bare in mind, calculating all rewards should not make PC to gain levels faster than 1lvl / month(once he's after four). And it should not matter if that players get that XP through RPXP scripts, combat, statics or DM time.


Whatever we do, i think we should not make any modifications that would ease leveling and make it faster.

[Swift]

Personally, i like the current advancement rates in game. It's sane and give meaning to leveling. It seems that the overall approach of ALFA is balanced, both in leveling and in rewards, and it's nice we don't see people around with epic levels and +5 gear.

Our highest level PCs been playing for nearly two years now, and i think they are exactly in the point they should be. (And that's VERY far from level 20, if you calculate XP and not just the number of levels, they are not even half way).

The actual advancement rate is not being questioned, it is the XP that individual mobs give that would seem to be below even the guidelines that ALFA decided on (which are themselves far below the DMG to reflect how much more common combat is in NWN2). As new players find out, it is far, far safer to stand around inside the safety of a cities walls and level up through the RP XP scripts because the risk vs reward of adventuring is a bit out of whack.

[rorax]

Yeah, i got it


I am just saying that considering ALL THINGS together, i am happy with the current advancement rates. That's when taking into mind combat XP, statics, DM xp and RPXP.

I do not think combat rewards should be higher, because i do not think it would encourage anyone to go "out" more. I think participating in combat is more connected to the nature of the character or the player. I know with Grull i used to 'go out' and combat alot , even if it eventually ended up with zero XP rewards.(don't forget there is still wealth rewards, something you don't get with RPXP scripts).

-If- you are right, and higher combat rewards would encourage players to 'go out' more. It would result in higher advancement rates. Personally, i really like the current advancement rates, but maybe i am in minority.

By the way - i might be wrong on this calculation but if i remember well, RPXP increments come every 7 mins and worth around 1-2XP. Assume your character 'go out to fight' and kill 10 creatures and rewarded with only 1 XP for each. It's already equal as he were gathering RPXP rewards between 35-70 mins, Of course, even when you're out combating, you will still get those RPXP rewards, hence you likely double your overall rewards even if you get only 1 XP for each creature...



Above ALL , combat is fun ! and it's often part of your character! how can you be a raging barbarian if you always stick to taverns? . It should be done mostly for the fun(and for the risk and chance something would go wrong) , not with thoughts about advancement...

[NickD]

The XP gain linked to still applies. Sort of. I never did understand why it got to the powered by .6... but apparently maths geniuses determined that it was the right thing to do.

As noted elsewhere in this thread, the calculation has been changed so that now the actual XP gained is determined both by the above formula for the highest level character in the combat (IIRC, being "in combat" means being within 45' of the creature that just died) and the size of the party in combat (It's now also divided equally between party members instead of higher levels getting a bigger share like how it used to work).

If the character is solo, they get a 60% of the XP (based on comments I saw when this was introduced, I suspect it's actually supposed to be 80% of the XP).

If there are multiple characters, the formula is: (XP*(1+(#Characters*0.25))) / #Characters

e.g., 100xp between 2 characters ends up as (100*(1+(2*0.25))) / 2 = (100*1.5)/2 = 75xp each, i.e., 75%

So...:
1 Character: 60%
2 Characters: 75%
3 Characters: 58%
4 Characters: 50%
5 Characters: 45%
6 Characters: 42%

[Keryn]

I know there is a tendency to claim going hunt to adventure and kill things is having advancement in mind but please don't say this.

This is just a side note anyway.

But one who goes out to hunt some Orcs in a high risk, gets a rush of adrenaline, thats what a perma death world gives you. The feeling of high risk - reward is relevant and it is part of the fun.

Just because you are adventuring doesn't mean you are after a new level, but it doesn't mean also you should see your reward nerfed, the game is set to work in a system of action-reward, ignoring this and that the way to improve in the game is by getting XP is to contradict the very foundations of it.

So please lets stop making earning XP as something we should be shamed of, yes Im out there to have fun, obviously, and yes Im also out there to see my PC improve. We cannot detach both aspects saying so is to be cynical at best...

[oldgrayrogue]

+1 Keryn. We are all here for the RP without a doubt. But D&D has always been about "adventuring" for me -- exploring dungeons, fighting monsters, thwarting villains (or being one) and the planning, preparation and RP that surrounds those quests. To me that is the essence of D&D, and XP gain and character progression are an inherent part of the game as well. There is no need to look down our noses at characters who progress as their story progresses. The problem is that in a PW environment, where the DMs aren't at the table at all times that the PCs are playing like in PnP, there can be abuses which we are all well aware of. Farming, powerleveling, all that nonsense. I have been advocating for a level 2 or 3 start for a while, and for an adjustment of the risk/reward XP gains from combat as well. IMO in an ideal world, the challenge rating and potential lethality of random encounters should increase as you advance in levels to keep the "adventuring" part of the game continuously challenging -- and keep it a permadeath world for higher levels as well as low levels. Its an old subject, but one that bears repeating every now and then. I doubt this aspect of ALFA will change any time soon however, if ever.

[Lokan]

+1. I'm with OGR. I think there should be the watchful eye of our DM and admin team, and you guys are taking the right amount of care to make things even and rules focused. But I also think that, for at least as long as I have been involved with ALFA, the players are just as concerned with the same ideas. So, i think there is a bit (but just a bit) more concern for the possibility that someone will abuse the rules, than there is for allowing a bit more excitement and game progress (leveling) of a character. I think allowing for a character start of lvl 2 or 3 is a good idea. you have to think about what happens to a player when they start a new character. I can imagine for many players, there is more than likely alot of down time between the death of a character and rolling a new one.

Maybe some players that have been here longer than i have can correct me, but it seems that especially for some of the longer termed players its harder to get back into the game after you have lost a PC that you have spent a good amount of time on, and now you have to start from square one again.

Why not give them at least a little boost. There is really no difference between a level 1 and a level 2 character....only that you at least stand a slightly better chance of surviving your first encounter.

And we usually invest some amount of time developing a new character before we play them. So increasing the possibility that a PC will last at least a little while might alleviate the dread of putting time into building a new character. Also, it gets the player back in the action of the server plots sooner. I really enjoy character development through RP as a group, but there still has to be the excitement of playing the game.

[NickD]

I've brought this up before as a solution to the "1st level blues". It didn't get any support, but it didn't get any derision either. In fact, it got no reaction at all. So I guess I'll bring it up again.

How about allowing multiple characters, but with only 1 character over 3rd level?

This would be policed by bringing back the 4th level approval wand, where you can't level to 4th until a DM approves you, at which point your character will be set to have 6001XP.

Pros:
* When a player's main dies, they can have a 3rd/4th level character there waiting for them.
* As alternatives can only amass as much XP as they can to get them to 3rd level, farming for these characters becomes a pointless exercise, freeing them up to be purely RP based characters.
* When a player starts getting a little bit tired of their character concept, they can play a different one for a bit.

Cons:
* It puts a massive crack in the base of the "1 character per player" pillar.
* Adds a requirement on DMs for levelling.
* Wealth levels would have to be monitored.


The third pro is the main selling point on this one for me. I've got about 5 character concepts I'm itching to try out, but I really don't want to retire Gruu for them.

[fluffmonster]

It seems to me that standards are usually shaped by the extremes, in this circumstance meaning the players that tend to get the most xp. Of course, the implication is that everyone else ends up with less than that. Until standards are shaped to be the norm rather than the limit, I don't see things changing that much.

[oldgrayrogue]

For the record Nick, I'll support any proposal that allows for more than one PC. =)