I agree on 1000xp/week being a very generous cap as the few times I have been close to those numbers have been in combinations of 10+ hour a day and DM events. I do not have a good viewpoint on what cap (or if a cap) should be used as my knowledge of normal rates are colored by my relatively short time in ALFA and I am not privy to any deeper insight in behavior and achievements by most characters , but the implementation of a cap for xp sounds like a feasible idea. If there is actual need for such, anyone with a deeper insight in this?
I-KP wrote:
It's also worth remembering that statics do tend to favour certain class builds, so they're already fundamentally unfair.
I do agree with this. I would gladly promote and help along any ideas of static content or otherwise that could offer new forms of encounters and challenges created with this in mind.
Mick wrote:
3. Speaking of home servers, every PC should identify with one. The home server could be changed with but a request to the DM team on the new server, but never more than once in a month. XP awards on a server not your own should come at a penalty (-25% or whatever.) This is to deter server hopping on a semi-weekly basis to hit DM events.
I like the part with a home server as a players base for the residing DMs could be used in planing events and plots. But I agree with I-KP on the part with xp penalty.
Is server hopping a such a frequent occurrence that penalty measures on xp etc are warranted?
Mick wrote:
4. RP XP should be modified by a variable attached to each PC. This variable is assigned by the home server DM team and is an indicator of quality of RP as seen by the DM team. This increases the amount of RP XP awarded for great RPers even when DMs are not around and it decreases the amount of RP XP for PCs who engage in grinding the RP XP scripts. Obviously this has the potential to generate some controversy because of its subjective nature. I would argue it is no more subjective than which PCs routinely get DM attention, however.
I-KP wrote:
With the greatest of respect, this a horrible idea. This would only serve to widen the gap between the Haves and the Have Nots. Some players are excellent RPers but very rarely see DM activity, much less give that DM a chance to see how good they are at RP, and their plight would worsen significantly if such a mechanism were to be implemented. There is also nothing that precludes a static farmer from being an excellent RPer, the two are not mutually exclusive and yet this idea presumes that they are in order to have the desired effect. I’d much prefer a system that presumes the best from everyone before evidence to the contrary is presented.
I agree on I-KPs thoughts.
DMs already have the prerogative to grant players XP for RP as they choose other venues besides hacking/slashing/blasting themselves through adventures. If DMs are encouraged and given opportunity to reward different forms of play and new challenges are created with focus besides the normal find-hit-return I am sure that players would meet a more dynamic and interesting world to play in.
PC: Rothar Hall
PC: Leon Merwine
Deceased: Thoian Trill
"You're only given a little spark of madness. You mustn't lose it. "
- Robin Williams
An accumulated static XP cap per week of some description is probably the least awful solution. Then the discussion becomes: what should the cap point be?
Like you said, any such cap becomes a PG target. Once that much static XP is achieved, no more point to play ALFA outside DM sessions. And people with less time on their hands will feel all the more compelled to get even a fraction of the cap, and thus to maximize static running for the times that they can play. Essentially the cap legitimizes PCs plowing through static contect with max power until they hit the xp cap.
And thus we decreased the number of players on our servers outside DM sessions, made it less likely for PCs meeting for good RP. Countering the whole purpose of statics. Further we strenghtened (or at the very least did not decrease) the XP incentive for our "average player" to spend his limited gametime for PGing static content (outside DM sessions). As opposed to taking the time and effort for creative RP.
Whereas capping static XP per IG hour retains the XP incentive for people to log in without a DM regardless of how much they have already played, and addresses directly how the PC deals with static content while they are in the game. It makes rewards go to zero if you plow through static content with max speed, telling the powergamer to take his time and do RP as well. Whereas a weekly cap tells the powergamer to go away and come back next week.
The only way how a IG time based XP cap is a worse powergaming/farming counter than a weekly cap is that it gives more rewards for the "being logged on, not playing but shuffling feet alone in a dark corner for the timed ticker." -cheat. But I do think we're pretty good at detecting this cheat when someone does this in the long run. It's been tried over and again, after all.
Then another question is if we don't really care about people RPing badly and powergaming/farming, but we primarily want to address leveling speed differences directly by giving less XP per time to those who play lots. So take away XP from high earners, regardless whether that XP is gained by metagaming or roleplaying well. A weekly cap, or some other preferably way smarter, dimret functionality would of course achieve that.
It's funny, three of Mick's "controversial" seeming ideas were actually tried in ALFA at one time or another, though sometimes in slightly different form. Let me run it down, but with maybe a couple more new-ish thoughts.
1. NWN2 Live date, we had a 1000xp/week cap, all sources, agreed to, but without any kind of scripted enforcement, nor DM enforcement either. It was dropped June 29, 2009 on agreement of DMA HEEGZ and PA Rotku. DMs can at least access a very old DM forum thread about this (it's called "XP Gain", original poster is HEEGZ, original date 18 June 2009). Won't directly link since the temporary forums thing I've noticed, makes old links dead due to a /forums/ vs. /phpBB3/ issue, and soon would make new links dead if we switch back.
The general argument at the time was "everyone'd be guilty, so why bother pretending there's a rule" in summary.
I do not know if the time is ripe for reconsidering something in this realm. There are probably six threads relating to this at least within my viewing access, and presumably more in server specific DM forums or admin forums. For whatever reason, the topic is hot, some people are baying for blood, some aren't.
Manual enforcement doesn't work. Scripted might. Folks are talking about "hey, shove most things under this cap, but keep the DM stuff out from cap, if you do 7 DM events in a week, whatever, lucky you."
2. No strong feelings. NWN1 we had "4th and every level after, you needed a validation." Intended to keep people from falling through the cracks I guess (how'd you advance with no story, type of thing). You'd hear about doomsday scenarios of "what if someone goes and shops for validation after being denied it?", but in practice I never heard of examples. Those might have been kept hush hush. The DM validating you would also be there at the time new hitpoints were rolled, and certainly more than once you'd hear of a reroll of a bad roll being permitted, which brought about more bad feelings for DM favoritism (i.e., not only did they grant this lousy PGer their level, but they let him reroll a 6 a couple times til it was a 9 or 10).
3. I sort of like the idea of a home server, I think I've tossed around the idea 1-2 times more in terms of a "loyalty" program giving benefits, rather than a "disloyalty" program giving penalties. Check it out though, in practical terms, DMs do know who is on their turf to stay, and who isn't. Stay in one place patiently, and that's probably where you're going to end up with your hovel, house or manor, that's where your NPC associates (allies and enemies) are going to be, that's where your story is known for potential hooks, etc. No, it's not exactly an encoded benefit of "ooh, 1.7xp for a transient, but 2.0xp for a resident", or the more negative "1.7xp for a resident but only 1.0xp for a transient", but I'd mostly think in practical terms, there's benefits to having roots. However, there are probably some folks who stick it out and never leave, and due to timezones, impracticality of grouping up people, disinterest in certain styles / stories, whatever, don't end up with DM patronage on a regular basis. Say you have the most "loyal" drow all alone in the Underdark, zero other PCs, playing in a dead time relative to other DMs, "look I'm not hopping" may still mean you're out of luck. Same may go for "look I'm an evil overlord who everyone is terrified of, darn I have no minions to pull together a group of 4 for a regular DM thing" (or good overlord, or dwarf seeking dwarves, whatever).
I suppose the occasional scripted toy could be thrown in for loyalty, here's your "honorary Ffolk" token, or your "citizen of BG" token or whatever, it gets noticed by NPCs to open alternate reward dialogues in statics, or alternate shops like nonfaith vs. faithful, or be reacted to by other NPCs, don't know. Sounds like a lot of work though, when practically, "locals" get noticed anyhow either some of or most of the time.
4. That's the system that was put into North Cormyr and one or more other servers in NWN1. DMs did kind of "judge" RP and set some variable, for kind of "poor/avg/good", for a counter to start ticking up, but XP was I think manually rewarded by DMs, only once they knew what was "in the bucket." That is, they'd peek at the bucket, maybe ask themselves "holy crap is 800 appropriate in a pile all at once", and maybe moderate it. There were a few times this malfunctioned in TPI, where DMs definitely had to moderate amounts, couple times they just dumped whole bucket at once and honest players ask "are you sure I was supposed to get 1000xp just now?" and then they realized they could check things before hand and control the reward. Jumping around clocks which we don't do much of, may have time to time screwed this up, so a safety valve was apparently in place for "don't be a slave to a crazy system, retain control."
I do not think our community could handle a "poor/avg/good" system, lot of folks would be offended at anything under good, much static forecast. If an excellent category was added too, that would be the new expectation. It is a kind of ridiculous system we've got, it's hourly XP whether sitting and nudging self a bit every few minutes, or a super slow conversation, or an amazing soliloquy or self-authored song, good, bad, in between, it all gets the same reward.
I suppose you could also go with peer recognition on this one. Issue everyone a single use per day "Attaboy" widget, which can only target a friendly who isn't yourself, and award 10xp. Then watch for patterns of daily logins to have mutual attaboy exchanges, ha ha. Second thought, maybe just issue the attaboy tokens to your local loyal residents, there you go, a loyalty reward from #3 above, deputizing people to hand out cookies, better than any ten mushrooms hunted alone I'd say, it requires people actually grouping and I suppose, getting enjoyment from each other. Take away the program if it turns out people just attaboy each other on the road, or trade gold for it, ha ha. "If you attaboy me, I'll give you 10gp." Perhaps ask for a little bit of backup notes on what awarded and why, from your "deputies," if it looks like weird patterns of mutual backscratching, never miss a chance to do so on recharge of attaboy item, going on.
Yeah, I guess peer recognition is maybe just a weird idea, from our recent crawling through logs, we see zillion xp in combat and statics, lots in DM rewards, but often <1%, or under <0.5% in terms of DMs choosing to use their 10xp "cookie" type power for when they get a chuckle or want to give a subtle, on the spot, thumbs up. Just an idea is all, less "across the board" than a scripted raise or lower to the automated stuff.
ALFA NWN2 PCs: Rhaggot of the Bruised-Eye, and Bamshogbo
ALFA NWN1 PC: Jacobim Foxmantle
ALFA NWN1 Dead PC: Jon Shieldjack
An accumulated static XP cap per week of some description is probably the least awful solution. Then the discussion becomes: what should the cap point be?
Like you said, any such cap becomes a PG target ... Whereas capping static XP per IG hour retains the XP incentive for people to log in without a DM regardless of how much they have already played.
Yes, capping per hour does sound less awful than a cap per week.
How would you decide what the accumulated static XP cap per hour should be? Some multiple of the RPXP drips for one hour might be a reasonable place to start, that way it stays in line with any future RPXP drip rate changes (if any).
More importantly, could an hourly XP cap from static XP be implemented if it was decided up by admin as something ALFA needs? No point in rolling with an idea just to have the tech department go "You crazy or something? We can't do that."
1000xp per RL week cap for static content. Period. It's plenty and most people don't ever approach it. No cap for DMd content. Right now there is NO CAP and most people do not incessantly grind the content to earn as much XP as they possibly can while playing. To think that a cap will somehow transform all of our players into PGers grinding towards the cap is well . . . let's just say I don't buy it. What it likely will do is stop the PGers among us from logging in simply to PG which quite frankly I don't have any issue with. Maybe they will decide to log in and RP instead? One can only hope.
The simple fact is that static quests and other static content, for the most part, is there for people to use as a source of context to RP around when no DM is available to play with. It is not intended to be used as a source of rapid leveling. How do you think the scripter who put tons of their time into creating static quests feels when a player blows through ten of them in a single day? I'd venture she feels like not scripting any more quests. If we upped the starting level I think it would solve part of the "static grinding" issue, because much of it probably occurs early on so the PC has a better chance of surviving that "lucky crit" and ending a concept prematurely. The real issue for me is with higher level PCs blowing through static content which has become devoid of risk for them. The question is not "how many statics can I do in a day without it being powergaming? or "how many spawns can I hunt in a day" or "how many mail runs can I do in a row without being a PGer." The question is WHAT IS IC? Answering that question requires the application of simple common sense. Ask yourself -- would my PC really walk from here to there and heare to there and here to there back to back to back to back delivering mail ? Would my PC really party up with his buddies and kill every spawn in a given area, then move to the next area and do the same thing, and then rinse and repeat tomorrow? It is common sense. No one is saying that grouping up for a dungeon crawl with freinds is bad, or exploration is bad -- that is what the content is there for -- it is grinding it that is bad because it becomes apparent that the primary motivation is XP and wealth and not true IC motivation.
Racking up hours and hours and hours of RPXP from the script also runs contrary to what the script was intended for IMO. As far as I know, the script exists only because ALFA does not have 24/7 DM coverage for everyone. It is a bonus, if you will, intended to give you a slight XP boost for simply logging in and RPing whether or not a DM is on. When people play so many hours that the script starts awarding hundreds of XP a week, in addition to the static XP those players earn, and in addition to the DM XP they earn, it is no longer serving its intended purpose IMO. Under those circumstances, where a player is already getting lots of XP from other sources, it merely serves as additional "free XP" without any justification in my view.
A simple 1000xp per RL week cap for static content solves all of these issues in a very simple way equally applicable to all players. If some type of scripted control on XP gain to moderate rate of levelling is not implemented (or not technically feasible) then it will fall to the DMs to do so. I for one am considering doing just that.
Leveling approval sounds like a huge headache, particularly on less active servers, like TSM. I can imagine people waiting a couple of months before having a level approved on those occasions.
1,000xp/week in static awards isn't so bad, and shouldn't be much of a big deal to implement. acr_quest_i.nss has ACR_AddPersistentJournalQuestEntry, which is responsible for the awarding of static XP in quest situations, I think. All we'd need to do check to see if the user has earned more than 1k this week, and store the reward in a different table. That XP can later be added in drips, at the next week, or something.
This is also where you can hook restrictions on static chaining. A persistent variable can be set when a player has taken a quest, and other static content will say that they do not have work if you have too many statics in use. Granted, this also poses problems, such as a person who asks for a Frost Giant slaying quest on accident, and is barred from further content until he completes that job. This could be fixed with the option of 'turning down' jobs you haven't started yet, which -would- require editing statics.
Let's also keep in mind that static content is just that: static. There's a finite amount of it, and after a month or so of play, it doesn't matter how quickly you did it, only that you did it.
The idea of a home server is something that I see quickly backfiring. Seeing as 90% of the static content on ALFA is on BG, all it will do is inspire people to centralize more on that one server. Plus, it tries to police roleplay in a way that I don't think anyone here has the right to. People play adventurers. Adventurers move around. What's the point in ALFA's goal to span Faerun if they want to lock characters to particular regions?
And, finally, if you want people to level slower than you, there's one simple thing that must be required: You have to make people to play less. This is a game. No matter what you do, or what roadblocks you try to put in place, the person who plays 6 hours a day will always out-level the person who plays 6 hours a week, or 6 hours a month.
But then, if you have to ask people to not play on your server, I think ALFA has bigger perspective problems than experience problems.
Last edited by FoamBats4All on Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think the question is up to tech.
Whats easyer to script and on the server?
Cap? 1k a week for all un-dmed content (RPXP, static, combat)
or to prevent leveling at certain levels without approval?
lets say 4, 7, 9, and every level after that?
critiria of time passed is easy.
month days for 4,
3 month for 7,
6 month for 9.
2 month for each level after that.
you could still get to level 12 in a year. which is amazingly fast for old ALFA.
As for finding a DM to validate you? thats easy. even on empty servers its easy to find a DM to log for 2 mins if you ask. And if its just a matter of time passed, then a DM from another server could do it just the same, even in Q.
<paazin>: internet relationships are really a great idea
A 1k cap per week of all non-DM content is a rather big problem. 1k/week in static XP seems more reasonable.
As far as the technical aspect of it, implementing a wait period on levelup is technically far easier to implement than a restriction on static rewards.
A 1k cap per week of all non-DM content is a rather big problem. 1k/week in static XP seems more reasonable.
As far as the technical aspect of it, implementing a wait period on levelup is technically far easier to implement than a restriction on static rewards.
if we can only cap staics the cap should be 500 max, and most would not even reach that.
and it wont solve the problem of idling for 12 hours a day.
As it seems cap posses a technical problem and we could only cap staic content (and not RPXP and combat) Then I suggest we go with vliadation per RL time passing.
level 4: a month
level 7: there month
level 9: six month
2 more for each level after that.
<paazin>: internet relationships are really a great idea
kid wrote:if we can only cap staics the cap should be 500 max, and most would not even reach that.
and it wont solve the problem of idling for 12 hours a day.
That's fine too. It would just take someone 6 weeks to complete all of BG's static content instead of 3.
kid wrote:As it seems cap posses a technical problem and we could only cap staic content (and not RPXP and combat) Then I suggest we go with vliadation per RL time passing.
level 4: a month
level 7: there month
level 9: six month
2 more for each level after that.
You can easily hit level 9 in 4 months without any abuse of static content.
---
I see ALFA's XP-related problems as 3-fold:
1) No scripted restrictions on content, particularly on TSM.
2) Foggy or non-existent rules or pillars on the subject of XP rewards.
3) Grumpy people who think that anyone who levels faster than them is abusing the system or against ALFA's non-existent and highly subjective rules.
I think that the Tech Team can really provide solutions. I see areas to focus on as:
- Provide an XP/RL hours played indicator, much like the wealth indicator for DMs, since DMs are in charge of leveling, and should have some indication before granting you 500xp.
- Place code to allow builders to prohibit people from accepting or turning in static content if they have earned too much XP. (E.g., the guard could wave you off and say he's busy and can't accept your turning in of a quest if you have too much XP this week)
- Ignore people who grump and rabble.
In general I think that informing DMs to reward in line with ALFA's pillars is a good idea, while placing restrictions on players for playing is a poor one.
It is unfair to people who only have a short time online to cap their XP gains on a daily basis thus crippling them further from progressing at a normal rate.
Thusly just because ONE person is going a bit overboard (and in no way anywhere near players in Alfa who have never gotten strikes for severe long-term exploits of farming and the game engine according to the data I've been shown that details XP/Looting behavior since 2006 on NWN2 Alfa) we don't need to demand changes in policy and scripting.
Two years ago a player got a little too spawn farm happy in TSM. And you know what? The HDM dealt with it with the PA and they got a strike. Did they do it ever again? Nope. And it was over and we moved on.
The system works. We are too small to need sweeping changes when the PA can deal with this player by player. And we need accept when a ruling is made and move on, dropping all the emotional witch hunting, and let it go just like we all did for the last four or five players who had strikes.
