XP in multi-leveled party

[Brokenbone]

Note in my mentioning an Option D (0 xp), I do not believe it ever really needs debating. (i.e., I really can't imagine it being supported in general or among standards folks)

Perhaps the NWN1 perspective I have (where virtually all fights after a few months, i.e., level 5, = 0 / 1 xp) is a function of broken dimrets. That is, you've hit a dozen "spawn number 0's" in Shadowdale, Sembia, Cormyr, wherever... occasionally stumbling across a uniquely named spawnpoint and not having the amount lowered, unless visiting that uniquely named spot multiple times.

I was particularly happy with having my current NWN1 character hit level 3 on less than 50xp worth of combat, that though was during a very "sweet spot period" in Sembia a year-and-some ago. I know that fortuitous combination of conditions is tough to repeat, especially with density of our only NWN2 server. Still, even as levels climbed, I'm used to 0's and 1's in the inevitable combats... but levels accrue regardless.

From the limited familiarity I have with logging and the overall design of ALFA's NWN2, there is a much "richer" stream of combat XP available than in NWN1. However, for some its an exclusive or nearly exclusive diet, sadly. Density is I guess the cause of that, maybe as other servers and DMs come on, we'll see some relief.

...

Anyhow the discussion of leeching vs. incenting to form parties, above, is interesting. I never liked the notion of playing a "caddy to the stars", nor of having others play caddy (or remora eel?) to my PC, based on level disparities. I remember it was one of those common NWN1 debates where DMs would in rare cases plead to stop teaming up in certain configurations, if certain level gulfs existed (i.e., toughguy hammers mobs without breaking a sweat, caddies clean up all the crap loot the toughguy graciously lets them take). Seem to recall Daggerford had at the DM level had started to try to feel out any possible policies to not have completely unbalanced partying up, don't know how well or poorly that succeeded in that DM teams' eyes.

PCs of different levels TEND to pull different amounts of weight in a party combat. Yes, some players are GREAT at having their PC sort of stand back as a "commander", only pitching in at key moments if things go a little out of control, still, I am not sure how many times you will see someone's restraint go so far as to permit a TPK of minions... well, unless that was the point of the outing, ha ha. (Sure, all you little 300gp guys stand in front, I will definitely use my ranged weapon from waaaay back here!). Hard to strike a balance, but "even" divisions will produce bizarre results more often than not. Ones that "assume" that higher level is usually higher contribution, seem more sensible.

[Magonushi]

I have had multiple confirmations from DMs that the logs show a correct split in XP, which was 2:2:3.

Sorry for the false alarm.

[witch]

Well still sounds odd when i look at the ingame figures. logs or not.

a party with a level 1 a level 2 and a level 4 fought ghouls.

im not sure what the level 4 got but the level 2 got around 12xp a kill and the level 1 3 xp...

Also teaming up with a higher level because its ic basically means in this case the low level loses out on the xp a lot.
you fight some kobolds and get 0 and maybe 1 xp while the higher level gets 5 or so. Dont know if its me but i think the risk for that lower level is more significant then for the high level. So in a party with higher levels and some low and they fight an average cr creature based on the party's average level.
the high level gets the xp and the low level gets a good chance to end up dead?

[AcadiusLost]

A party with:
1 level 1 (1/7 = 14% total)
1 level 2 (2/7 = 28.5% total)
1 level 4 (4/7 = 57% total)

If the level 2 got 12xp, the level 1 should have gotten 5 xp, and the level 4 should have gotten 24 xp.

If you've got the time on that, everyone's XP gains per kill can be checked.

Unless it's actually confirmed though, what we've got is a lot of suspicion that "PC X who is higher level than me" is "probably getting too much XP". As far as I know, we've not seen a single case of the XP division malfunctioning.

[Kalandorm]

A party with:
1 level 1 (1/7 = 14% total)
1 level 2 (2/7 = 28.5% total)
1 level 4 (4/7 = 57% total)

If the level 2 got 12xp, the level 1 should have gotten 5 xp, and the level 4 should have gotten 24 xp.

Honestly the xp split has been the only thing that I've not understood in ALFA so far. I know a method is needed to dissuade free rides from lower level characters, but honestly, this really flies in the face of encouraging team work. My perspective is that within 2 levels of another, there should not be a split at all, only penalize for differences greater than that on a scale. I was recently 1 of a 2 man group, I was level 2, he was level 1, and he was getting precisely 50% less than I was. At low levels, everyone is a one hit wonder, and we're all taking the same chances in combat, regardless. Where is the motivation to encourage working with groups? A one level difference in characters is nothing notable to speak of. For that matter really, neither are 2 levels. Should a level 1 get XP for traveling with a group of 5th levels, no. But to penalize them for trying to come together with people closer to their level?

I have seen on some server systems where XP is scaled up depending on the number of people in a group, to encourage team work. Not level based but based on how many characters are in a single party. I think something along those lines would better encourage play between characters.

[Kest]

In design you encourage the behavior you want to develop... here we have a system that tells the player not to solo and not to group.

The focus on not adventuring alone seems pretty heavy here, so why are you handing out penalties for adventuring in teams? Kalandorm may have something, there.

[NickD]

Less in favour of XP scaling up for how many players in a party. But I would like to see XP being based on the entire encounter, rather than individual mobs. You should be getting more XP for taking on 10 goblins in one go than you would get for taking on 10 lots of a single goblin.

But both ideas are ALFA issues, not TSM issues.



[EDIT]
And I also think characters within 2 levels of each other should get the same XP... however, what happens when you have a party of a level 2, a level 4 and a level 6. The level 2 character should get the same XP as the level 4 and the level 4 should get the same XP as the level 6, but the level 2 shouldn't get the same XP as the level 6... So how would that work?

[Lusipher]

Ive never liked the fact that the world was so dangerous you couldnt solo a bit either. Ive been here since before beta started for NWN1 and soloing has always been discouraged because they see soloer's as powergamers. They see soloers farming spawns, statics, etc. Yet, when the DM coverage is as poor as it is what else is there to do when folks arent around? Log out.

If we play in groups we should get better XP IMO for kills. I was in a group last night with a lvl 4 and im not sure what the other character was. I helped kill a few mobs and got 1xp for each kill. I know we want to encourage folks to make the bulk of their XP with DM quests, but 1xp per kill is just silly. I have also gotten 1xp per kill when I was just with the level 4 killing some random mobs doing the RM statics, which btw are way too hard for a lvl 1 or so to do alone.

This is why I would like to see crafting in ALFA. At least I could do something besides looking at npcs that dont give quests or anything when no players are online. Personally, Id take out any NPCs that dont have some form of quest, etc in places like a tavern. We understand folks frequent the places, but all the npcs do is take up space and cause some lag. Ive always been about building whats needed not whats nice to show.

Anyway, I dont get the XP amounts much either, but then again Id change a lot of things for lower levels and solo players. Least they would have a chance to do something and could still participate with groups when its IC for them to do so or when they get involved in a DM plot.

[Kest]

This is why I would like to see crafting in ALFA. At least I could do something besides looking at npcs that dont give quests or anything when no players are online. Personally, Id take out any NPCs that dont have some form of quest, etc in places like a tavern. We understand folks frequent the places, but all the npcs do is take up space and cause some lag. Ive always been about building whats needed not whats nice to show.

I'd agree with this - if there's no plans to have npcs interact with players in some way, ditch em. The named ones without dialogue are especially irritating.

[Lenaxis]

In addition to all of the XP problems, what you want for lower level characters (and especially new players) is to provide an incentive to actually PLAY on ALFA! I have been an inconsistent player for the last 2 years and this comes from the fact that there has been no encouragement to continue to play because there is little way to advance your character aside from RPing around a DM. And for some people, finding a DM online is like finding gold at the bottom of a rainbow. How about you include the means to let the characters reach some early respectable level i.e. 3ish, which provides the foundations for the player to stay on and play... Yes, this does mean that characters on average will be 3 levels higher... but so what, it's all relative anyway. Either way, I'm not sure what the numbers are but I've noticed the ALFA player based doesnt seem to be expanding at any great rate of knots...

[Kest]

How about you include the means to let the characters reach some early respectable level i.e. 3ish, which provides the foundations for the player to stay on and play... Yes, this does mean that characters on average will be 3 levels higher... but so what, it's all relative anyway. Either way, I'm not sure what the numbers are but I've noticed the ALFA player based doesnt seem to be expanding at any great rate of knots...

Yeah... the first few levels are best spent in some sort of training setup - you see this in nearly every campaign for a reason. There are any number of ways to do it - from military academies to mage schools to monasteries to druid circles to gladiator pits - it need not be mandatory, it helps with backgrounds, and it is more immersive than running everyone through the same set of help our local village quests.

The quests that risk life and limb should also carry an appropriate reward... which 50xp for example is not. You get the same simply existing.

The mage college and bard school in Silverymoon are definite steps in the right direction; they and similar setups should receive more support.

Going off-topic, though.

[Kalandorm]

In design you encourage the behavior you want to develop... here we have a system that tells the player not to solo and not to group.

The focus on not adventuring alone seems pretty heavy here, so why are you handing out penalties for adventuring in teams? Kalandorm may have something, there.

A penalty for adventuring in teams is precisely what we have. Why bother meeting new people and forming in character relationships, should you decide to travel with them, you're earning less XP than if you took your chances alone. Unless the goal is to encourage solo travelers, something is horribly backwards with the current system. I've already seen lots of people throw their characters lives away trying to earn more XP than what they would by simply taking some help along with them.

[Teric neDhalir]

For what it's worth, I expect we'll see the spawn density and predictability decrease as time goes on- one can look to the wilds of the OAS2 for some examples.

See! See! I was right all the time! *cough* Please return to your discussion.

[Kalandorm]

In the last few days this issue has come up again for several players I've been playing with. I'm guessing the admin/staff has no plans to switch from rewarding solo play to group play? I never really saw a definitive answer. *bump*

[Mulu]

XP by canon is based on risk, and low level PC's are always taking the biggest risk, period. Ranged weapons can hit you even if big tough guy is in front, monsters can and do also charge past to strike those in the rear, and with a 5 second non-canon bleed out, well the risk is obvious.