[MUD-Dev] Removing the almighty experience point...

[richard at kavir.org]

--------

--<cut>--
Note: This message was written via the list web archives.  There is
no guarantee that the claimed author is actually the author.
--<cut>--
Original message: http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/2004Q3/msg00850.php

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:25:41 -0700
Sean Middleditch <elanthis at awesomeplay.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1969-12-31 at 23:59 +0000, neild-mud at misago.org wrote:

>> The problem with this, as Vincent said, is that experience points
>> are fungible.  There's no difference between xp earned for
>> whacking rats, saving the princess, or killing the troll king--it
>> all goes in the same pot.  It's this form of fungible achievement
>> that is the problem.

> Domain XP solves the problem nicely while keeping the simplicity
> of an XP based system.  Each task has a certain domain attached to
> it, and different skills/classes also have domains attached.
> Killing things with a sword gives you Warrior XP.  Casting spells
> gives you Caster XP.  Picking locks and disarming traps gives you
> Rogue XP.  If all you do is go around bashing monsters, all you
> can get better at are the skills related to bashing monsters.

It's an improvement, but it still doesn't differentiate between xp
earned for whacking rats and xp earned for killing the troll king.
Nor does it prevent you improving your fireball spell with xp earned
from healing the party, or mastering weapons you've never even used.

> Using just some pre-written "level" field for the monster is not
> going to work.  A monster might be a very difficult fight for a
> level 10 wizard but a very easy fight for a level 10 warrior. The
> difficult should instead be determined by either a) the individual
> attributes, or b) measurements taken during the actual battle.

Basing the xp on individual attributes might help somewhat, although
it could also encourage some odd behaviour (such as characters
stripping down to their underwear in order to get the most xp for
their kills).  Combined with the exp domain you described
previously, Bubba would find himself being able to improve his sword
skill faster if he used a battle axe (in which he was unskilled)
instead of his longsword.  If he wielded a herring (which makes an
exceptionally poor weapon) instead, he'd be able to improve his
sword skill even faster still.  To me this is counter-intuitive.

Basing the xp on actual measurements would be even worse, as you'd
effectively be punishing player skill.  The first solution you
proposed might punish a good character setup, but this solution also
punishes good player performance.  Once again I find this
counter-intuitive, and it's the exact opposite of what I'm trying to
achieve within my own game.

> How many resources did the wizard lose?  (prepared spells, mana
> points, health points, item uses/charges, etc.)  How many
> resources did the monster lose?  How many successful attacks did
> each make?  How damaging on average was each participant's
> attacks?

Boffo the wizard engages in combat with a small rat, which he
occasionally hits with his soft (yet pointed) hat.  Then he sits
back and lets it nibble on his shoes while he enchants all of his
gear.  Once he's finished upgrading his equipment he treads on the
rat, killing it, and earns a large sum of xp.

Also worth noting is that it would remove much of the incentive to
search for stronger monsters to fight - you could stick with the
same monster for quite a long time, just removing equipment and
fighting with increasingly poor tactics the stronger your character
became.

> The Real World(tm) functions fine with currency.

That's highly debatable.  Do you really want to simulate a system in
which the top 1% earn as much as the poorest 57%?

> The problem with game economics tends to be a lack of realism in
> the economics.  For example, there is an infinite number of coins
> in the game.  As time passes, more coins come into being.  In the
> real world, there is a fixed amount of coinage.  Even when the
> government mints new coins or prints more bills, it's usually at a
> rate fairly near the estimated loss/destruction of existing
> currency.

> In a game, the solution is to provide a fixed amount of coinage
> and goods.  For example, say you have some monsters (orcs) that
> normally have coins and equipment.  Well, simply, give the orcs a
> pool of coins and equipment.

Unfortunately it's not that simple, as the monsters themselves are
often a resource in their own right.  What if it's not the orcs
equipment I'm after, but their skin, or ears, or bones, or whatever
else?  Will you put the orcs in the pool as well?  What if I started
hunting down and skinning other PCs, or crafting weapons and armour
from their bones?  You can't put them in the pool!

And what about other resources, such as food?  If I can't afford to
buy bread, and there's no more fish to be caught, my character is
going to starve to death.  Obviously in the real world this does
happen, but do you really want PCs to starve to death because they
can't afford to eat?  Is it really fun, as a newbie, to have to
spend half your online time begging from others just to stay alive?

There reaches a point where realism is no longer fun, and IMO this
is one of them.  Better just to create an artificial economy which
supports the fact that some resources are infinite.  A mud operates
very differently to the real world, and a balanced economy system
will need to recognise those differences and respond accordingly.

--
KaVir.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev