[crossfire] xp gaining (was: Priority feature list)

[Juergen Kahnert]

On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 09:37:44PM -0700, Mark Wedel wrote:
> Max levels of monsters:
> The problem here is feature (or monster toughness) creep.  It is easy
> enough to say 'max level for any monster should be 100'.  The problem
> is that if you have characters that are level 150, they will start
> saying 'where is the challenge, what is left to do - I can kill any
> monster easily, etc'.

The level 100 should be practically / nearly impossible to reach.  So
having level 150 characters is unlikely.

Anyway, if we get such high level characters which may be bored, we just
add a new region for this level.


> So someone decides to fix this and make level 150 monsters, etc.  This
> is what has happened before, and this is why a level limit is needed.

And player won't become bored if they hit the maximum level?  I don't
think so.

You like to solve the boredom of a level 150 character slaying level 100
monsters with a (50 level earlier beginning) boredom after hitting level
limit at level 100?

I don't get your point, why a hard cap is needed.


> As said before, it may be that the limit is purely practical - there
> is in fact no limit, but the exp gains are such that levels are
> effectively limited.  If players say 'The exp gain above level 100 is
> way too high', simple response would be you either do that, or we put
> in a hard level cap - take your choice.

I choose to let it extensible.  No level limit and if players reach the
last region with nothing more to explore, we need to add a new region
with new and stronger monsters.


> High level players doing low level maps:
> Is this really a problem?

Yes, it is.


> I never do it because it isn't worth while - the exp gain isn't there,
> nor are there good items.

A high level dragon with clawing level 100 decides to level up sorcery
will block a low level map for a very long time until the sorcery skill
is on a desired level.


>   the only exception I can really think here is the dragon character -
> the number of maps that have suitable creatures to generate proper
> flesh for dragons is limited - as such, they are much more likely to
> repeat certain dungeons.

There are a lot of exceptions.  Because of the missing storyline a lot
of players just don't know where to go.  They do the same [known] maps
over and over again.

And the high level experienced players just take the maps where to get
most xp and / or treasure.  And than this map is blocked by a few
players over and over again.


> I personally don't think the exp system (as far as killing monstes go)
> really needs a major redo - at one time in the past, difference in
> level was taken into account, but that caused other problems - if a
> low level character was able to kill a tough monster, they got lots
> more exp.

Just reduce the xp gained by a monster if you're higher.  Don't give out
more xp if you killed a monster on a lower level.  The monster xp is the
maximum you can get from it.


> With various special items and specific race/class attributes, this
> became more likely.

Fix that.  Don't make high level items equipable for low level
characters.


>   Also, the crossfire exp table is almost an exponential system, where
> as AD&Dv3 is more linear (the exp needed for level 20 is 10 times that
> of level 2).  So adding this extra adjustment really just amounts to
> extra penalty/bonus.

Making level 100 as hard to reach as level 115 is right now, won't make
level 101 characters more likely even if the xp table is more linear.


>   The other reason this adjustment of exp was removed is that it
> actually makes it more difficult to set up exp rewards.

Do we have xp rewards?  Where?  How do they look like?  Which skill
would get the xp?

The xp reward is nice for pen & paper RPGs with just an overall level.
But why do you like to use it if you have levels on skills which raises
if you use them?


On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 07:22:49PM +0200, Nicolas Weeger wrote:
> > Anyways, it's just about the feeling.  I don't like to encounter
> > monsters with a higher level than I have without the theoretically
> > chance to reach this level.  And... if someone ever managed to reach
> > the max xp, what's next?  Those two with level 115 stopped playing
> > or playing different characters, right?
>
> Different players have different ideas of the game.
> IMO we should keep the current exp system, maybe rebalance exp gaps,
> but keep the 115 limit.

The level number doesn't matter.  Keep this maximum xp value for the
aimed highest level, if 100, 115, 150 or whatever.

But rebalance the gaps, make it more linear.


> And, on the other, keep expanding content. Content, you know,
> something we always forget :)
> (this is not meant to be insulting)

As I said, if the player reach the aimed highest level, it's time to
extend the world.  Add a new higher level region.  A level cap is no
solution.


> > No, it's not.  But don't make monsters getting a higher level than
> > the maximum of the xp table.
>
> Sure we should. High level (150) monsters you can only kill with 4
> 100+ level players.

No, we shouldn't.  ;)

Just extend the xp table up to level 150, even if the players never ever
reach level 100. There is technically no difference, but still leave
room for extensions. 

    Jürgen