| Possible EXP fix (imms read) |
|
|
| Possible EXP fix (imms read) |
|
So logically, which would I play with? The level 50 mobs are certainly hella fun to fight but not very efficient.
For people like me who are capable of killing mobs 20 levels higher, there should be some sort of xp percent bonus per level below the mob.
Well I don't know how to correctly propose this.. or how it could be coded or what kind of table to base it on.. But maybe there should be (I bet this number is wrong but) a 2% bonus of the total exp for ever level below the mob. Well it's an idea.. I'd appreciate some comments
Deicide, Slayer of Gods who don't do nice things =)
-Ruf
You get more xp if you are grouped than if you killed them mob alone. Not much more but a little bit.
Just do it like if 2 ppl in group mutliply xp by 2.5 then it gets divided by 2.
The xp scale is screwed in more ways than one here.
Don't get me wrong, I like this scale better than the old one. It is kinder to newbies, and people who die, though I have yet to do that I guess the problem I am talking of could be solved by introducing more mobs of that level to that area, or something and I know this has been suggested before, but nothing seems to have been done about it. If I'm wrong there, please correct me, I would just like to know that action is being taken, not just talked about.
Merry Christmas everyone, and don't get your stomach pumped at New Years
Vampiro.
In following all the xp scale issuses on this board, I think this append by Rufus is the first to suggest that the imms (or an imm) felt that this system was not yet perfect. I found myself breathing a sigh of relief when reading Rufus' post, since I can't recall that being said before despite many mort suggestions for exactly that.
Never would I suggest that it be possible to level off 1 or 2 kills like it was possible to do in the old system. But I know that its infinately more exciting to go after a level 50 mob at level 30 than to kill 25 level 28 mobs. :P
If I can kill a level 50 mobs at level 39 for 14k xp and lose about 200 hitpoints and 300 mana (depending on the mob) or kill 2 level 35 mobs for 7k each and lose 10 hitpoints and 50 mana between the 2 of them, what am I going to choose? The point is right now that the choice is between having fun (killing higher level mobs) and progressing (levelling). Can't we have both to some degree?
Fright
-Mandarb
This really hurts the flow of newbies because it takes a while now to level a character and people who have their old characters didn't have to work through it.. bah whatever..
I vote for a pwipe and get the old system back!
Deicide, =)
Deicide, thinks coherent posts are best.
So I'm not sure that we can pull it out altogether, but certainly I think it ought to be less steep, and possibly only start to drop off at, say, 10 levels below the level of the mob.
That might be a little incoherent, it's kinda late :)
-LA
Fright
-Ruf
Hell make it against the rules, you certainly got plenty of other rules, so you cant really make the arguement that you dont have time to enforce it.
Your muds broke, mainly because your reacting to what the players are doing. And not reacting very well I might add.
-Ruf
Isn't 20k xp a bit low for a standand lvl 50 mob? I don't see a problem with low levels not getting good xp as much as high levels not getting much for the same mob. I have chars lvl 25 or so that can get 10k easily, where 20k or so seems to be average for higher level mobs. Now the lower xp loss from dying is nice, but theres some real problems with the system. Glad to hear yall are working on it.
I say fix the system, then worry about making rules for those that abuse it.
Sorry is that was incoherent, I'm tired =)
quercus
I think the immort staff are doing a fine job pulling this large burden around.. they dont have to change anything.. but they wish to keep the mud fair and balanced and they take player feedback.. they do not 'react to what the players are doing'.
If people are successful with something, they don't neccessarily take it away, unless of course its blatantly unfair or against rules.
Dei
Like I said in my post.. I can demolish a WWI Sergeant and lose like 30 hp with a net gain of near 14k exp..
But then I go and kill Rhys, who takes over well over 150 hp and I end up getting like 23k.. I don't see why I shouldn't kill two sergeants without danger than to actually have fun and take a risk playing with Rhys.
Deicide.
Quercus, I played a mud once where got got exp per hit landed on the mob.. and the exp was based on the the mob's level. That is somewhat like what you describe. So, what people would do... They would throw a round or two on a huge mob and run away... Someone else would prolly finish the mob later.
Kinda silly,
Deicide,
I hope this is my last append before people get angry =)
Theres nothing wrong with saying the mud is broke.
Yes the imms work hard on it too, I have played here a long time, but I think theres clearly some things wrong.
Now if your one of those ppl that believe that legend is the best mud in the world, thats fine. It surely isn't the xp system thats making you think that im sure. Ppl that say things like that, ie best mud in the world, look past the things that are broken for other reasons. They enjoy it in spite of the problems, and will tend to say this no matter what, and they hate to see their mud criticized.
Actually I've been playing medievia the last couple weeks and will probably play sojourn when it reopens, but I always recommend legend when someone talks about other muds to try. And I care about this mud, which is why i criticize and give suggestions I find from other muds.
Sometimes you have to go elsewhere just to see how bad things are.
Adolfus/BeAM
And it is bad, when L25 character can make several mobs for 10k in row, L50 can't make it.
Maybe problems is when you are high level, you are not getting more exps in row than 10 levels ago. L50 mobs are very hard for nope exps. i'm without a healer big zero, waiting about 25 minutes for healing. Maybe I can make dun solo in row (I think there are easy L50 chars), get 120k together and then I can go to sleep somewhere or try to find healer. At L30 I could kill all priests in Mexico, kill some knights. Together more than 120k. Then i needed to rest for hp, but still less time than at L50 and for more exps. I know, it has to be hard to find the right way.
But I know, our immortals will find it.
I trust them. ;)
Shine, the son of Aaron!
Shine
I ask this because while I very much like having healers around, the fact is that I get xp a lot faster -without- one. Having a healer along is a wonderful thing, but it cuts the amount of xp I gain in the same amount of time by more than half.
Under the old xp scale I couldn't have cared less how much of a cut having a healer along took, because having a healer actually meant I got -more- xp during a run, and not less. What worries me about this is the difficulties faced by dedicated healers, e.g. the 100 mind/spir druid.
Yes, I can heal myself, but even if a player doesn't have some way to heal via magic/spam/first aid/augment/etc, there are quite a few other healing options open to them. What need for a healer, then, if it cuts into xp gain so drastically, when eating a few healing items, and a few drinks, then resting up a bit is so much more effective?
This problem is made worse if the healer in question is a high level one. It's so much more difficult to get xp at 50 than it is at say, level 30-45 So if the amount of xp were doubled on level 50 mobs killed -by- level 50s, this might leave a lot more generous a cut to the low level healers who need the xp, while giving a decent cut to high level healers a and the fighters with them.
High level surgeons don't, frankly, seem much desired anymore, and God help you if you're a level 50 liman. The call always seems to be for a "low to mid-level londoner".
This might also deal with the powerlevelling problem, which I'm under the impression was one of the main reasons for this new scale, since it'd make grouping at level 50 (outside of SL and Dis) worthwhile again, as well as preventing people from getting mobs to dying and letting their friends finish them off.
Ach, that's all the rambling I have to do today, my thanks for your patience.
Gwalchmai ap Lot
-Mandarb
Vampiro
-bounce-
Bryn!
Course, I'm a mid-level london surgeon, so...
Bao-Jian
Honestly, the problems with higher levels is that there is a shortage of mobs and their xp doesn't even come close to reflecting how tough they are to kill. I thought somewhere there was a plan to make mobs reach up to lvl 100 (which i think would be a disaster considering the hit table atm -- for players, anyway) and that could probably allow lvl 50 mobs to be toned down in general.
The time it takes to level, in my experience, isn't too drastically different for me, mostly because i changed my mudding habits to accomodate the new system -- and also because i wasn't that great at levelling to begin with.
But xp at lvl 44 and above should seriously be looked at, because there is a gap there where things lower than you are worth too little, while things almost equal or higher are too troublesome. Take into account that the % of hp loss remains relatively close (if not lower) to that of lower levels for a similar amount of % xptolevel, the time required for unassisted healing skyrockets, also adding to the frustration of players who want to have a 50 clanned or a new char concept at 50.
Since most of the new eq are rather renty, and most chars not nearly as effective or interesting without using some (+dam, +hp, +hit, etc) for some of us the new chartypes we want to try can only rent their setup at 50 -- the means to reaching that setup usually meaningless for us.
Although i wouldn't go as far as asking to abolish the level system and simply implement a command that allows a char to level (for people who CARE about the levelling process, they can still choose to do so, while others may simply churn out 50s for fun -- but perhaps with a small penalt y to the character, say, limited lifetime :p), it may not be too bad an idea to simply create 'intermediary' areas, areas that serve no purpose really other than providing mobs one could kill. The area will be reduced and eventually eliminated once we reckon there are enough mobs out there for all levels, or could be converted into a real area.
As far as xp after 50 goes -- the only reason i personally bother getting xp is because it is a good way of making sure that i give my clanned chars their due chance before i give up on them. The xp itself isn't that hard -- it's merely annoying because of the inefficiency involved in pkill when you combine it with mobkill (stalking takes too much time when you could be getting xp) and the fact that for an efficient run, you have to get people together that know what they are doing -- tfers, healer and hitters. It is a boring venture to do solo, but not too intriguing in groups either -- as the payoff is small, and it is still difficult to find people who can and will spend as much time as you would on the venture.
Summing it up (i haven't posted in a while, so this one got long :p), I don't think there's a problem at lower levels, we could use a lot more high lvl mobs that are linearly harder and not geometrically harder, incentives should be built into grouping such that the bonus takes into account the length of time spent grouped -- with the presence of certain skills increasing the xp attained by those members of the group with the skill. Also, retiring from pk shouldn't be set in amount of xp, but in number of Info's the char participated in, be it on the dealing or the receiving end (say, 100 pts to retire, 2 pts for dealing, 1 pt for receiving.. or 3 pts for dealing, 2 pts for receiving, 1 pt for being grouped with somebody that dealt or was dealt an info -- making it possible for low lvl clanneds to unclan without lvlling up).
Mo!