New idea for giving a/d exp

[Cycloonx]

I see in a lot of other games that you get a certain amount of exp for killing a monster, not for blocking, or hitting it. So do the same in EL, give a certain amount of attack and defense exp per monster, this way people would try to kill a monster as fast as possible. So swords will have a use then ...

 

Only problem here is that newbs will be serping everything around them, only thing that can help here is a required a/d or certain nexus/attribute (this could also add some new things for needed attributes).

 

I think this can solve some problems in game

 

Edit: Giving monsters more health would help to make it so that monsters won't die on a sec with a sword.

Edited June 4, 2006 by Cycloonx

[Bharain]

I liked an idea i read somewhere about giving attack exp based on the damage done. That way you could serp things for faster attack exp but you would get better def exp if don't use a weapon.

[Arnieman]

Actually, the way I see it...

 

You can get more exp/monster by fighting barehanded, but if you can kill a monster quicker, you have less chance of dying to it - and can probably fight tougher monsters.

 

Essentially, a sword can help you earn more a/d, or you can not use it to earn more on something weaker.

 

To me, a sword as is now is little more than an "insurance policy".

 

I still support the old idea of adding exp per weapon-type, giving advantage for people who do choose to fight with a weapon as well as to people who choose not to.

[WizzKidd]

I used to agree with you on this matter. But I have reset my character and get TONS of exp per monster I fight now, so I love the system just as it is

[trollson]

The xp per kill is certainly the oldest method on the books (original D&D c.1974), but the xp-per-round is more flexible:

• You can lose and learn, hit and run, no requirement to actually kill.
  
• Sharing xp in a multiple combat is resolved.
  
• Each combat skill progresses independantly (A/D).
  

This also fits in with how other skills work; experience for successful use rather than goals (this is not necessarily a good thing though -- see footnote).

 

Offering xp scaled with damage taken or avoided (for defence) may indeed be an improvement; this could be scaled to offer more xp for larger lumps of damage (more for 1 x 20, than for 2 x 10).

 

But somehow this all gets too forumlaic...

 

The problem may really be with the combat system not representing the effect of weapons, natural or otherwise.

 

To greatly simplify: Range wins -- the longer weapon can hit and keep a shorter one at bay. This can be partially represented by a defense bonus for longer weapons, but that is not really sufficient. Consider Mike Tyson vs. a Bear, Tyson would be very luck to get an opportunity to plant a blow or bite the bears ear, regardless of his skill, whereas Mr Newbie with a long spear has at least a running-away chance.

 

Slightly more elaborate: Weapons have a min/max reach in which they are effective:

• A combat starts at the maximum reach of the longest weapon (except for surprise or ambush)
  
• Each side makes at attack vs defense attempt each round, for the purpose of maneuvre, whether their weapon reaches or not. If their weapon cannot reach, then no damage is done.
  
• If both sides succeed in their attacks, range stays the same.
  
• If both sides fail, range is increased by one 'unit'.
  
• If only side succeeds, then range is adjusted by one 'unit' in their favour; to put their weapon in range and, if possible, to get out of the range of their opponents.
  
• If a side is just defending (eg, the 'Home' key), and the other side fails their attack, then range is also increase (thus, range could increase by +3 if both sides are defending and no ones attack succeeds).
  
• If neither side is in range, they have disengaged.
  

Note that none of this requires any animation or any additional player intervention, as its just a simple optimisation process. Also, since adjusting ranges is related to A/D, large discrepancies in skills will still result in rapid closure, so the effect is only for the first few rounds; this is probably not strong enough to represent the effect of weapon reach disparity, so is only a starting point.

 

Add in more varied types of physical damage (see my post under "Missile Protection?"), and the choice of weapon becomes more of a real choice and less of a single best solution.

 

Saxons vs Norman (I'd be off to the right somewhere)

Though my preference is to only give experience for completing quests or goals, and not for individual actions. Players can then spend that experience on improving whatever skills they want. No more levelling, but needs an effective scenario generator, which is the hard part...

Edited June 9, 2006 by trollson

[Atlantis]

How about this for an idea:

ex. gargoyle

use serp: 100 xp

use tit long: 200 xp

use steel sword: 300 xp

barehanded:500 xp

etc. then you have to subtract xp for each level you are over the monster (like it is currently). The only problem with this is that you would have to not be able to change weapons in combat (or to make it really complicated, what % of the fight was fought with which weapon (serp fought with 50%, so you get 50 xp for that, other 50% was fought barehanded, so you get 250 xp for that))

[Tizzie]

The way I see it is that weapons are useful. Like say you want to get full fur, but in the process want to train manufacturing instead of just buying it. You could kill the animals needed faster than bare-handedly.

[trollson]

You could kill the animals needed faster than bare-handedly.

 

Whether you fight armed or unarmed makes little difference to the total time taken to collect the furs by hunting; combat is only a small portion of the overall time it takes to hunt the animal, and so you may as well get the additional experience by going bareknuckled.

 

Experience per round is a good system in principle, avoiding a lot of problems with kill based methods. Its the implementation that it then encourages unarmed combat (due to cross effects between the experience calculation and the combat system), which is a reminder that game mechanics are never as trivial as they first appear.

 

 

Anecdote time: Many years ago we drafted a complex species generator for a sci-fantasy RPG, which produced lots of weird and wonderful forms. Unfortunately there was an unexpected correlation; the more legs a species had, the greater its starting skills... Number of legs correlated with greater possible size, size correlated with lifespan, and lifespan correlated with starting skills. sigh...

Edited June 9, 2006 by trollson

[KibblesAndBits]

but people will get same exp instead of dif for each level and this mess up whole level system

[Cycloonx]

but people will get same exp instead of dif for each level and this mess up whole level system

 

Nah it will decrease each level, like you get 50 exp of killing a rabbit on a/d 3/3, you will get 45 exp for instance when killing it with 4/3

Edited June 9, 2006 by Cycloonx

[trollson]

Nah it will decrease each level, like you get 50 exp of killing a rabbit on a/d 3/3, you will get 45 exp for instance when killing it with 4/3

 

Cycloonx, I don't wish to seem like I am picking on you here; rather this concept keeps cropping up...

 

Adjusting experience for relative levels keeps raising its head -- and it is completely unnecessary and redundant; it is already factored into the game!

 

Experience is just a means to get levels, and the experience-level table is already a geometric progression; any experience adjustment for relative levels is equivalent to just making the curve steeper (and would you want that?).

 

While comparing the tasks by their experience value is valid, its not valid to use experience to compare relative worth of a task to characters of different levels. Rather, consider experience relative to that needed to gain their next level.

 

Example: If the rabbit is worth 50 xp, consider how much this is effectively worth as level increases:

• At level 3 this is 64% of the way to the next level.
  
• At level 4 it is 46%, equivalent to 35 xp at level 3.
  
• At level 5 it is 32%, equivalent to 25 xp at level 3.
  
• By level 10 it is only 6%, equivalent only 5 xp at level 3!
  

So the rabbit's 50 xp already becomes less significant as level increases, and does so far more rapidly than suggested in the quoted example above.

Edited June 9, 2006 by trollson

[Cycloonx]

I'm just reflecting it to the current system, because fighters get less a/d exp when leveling... And afaik not a lot of people want to chance this...

Edited June 9, 2006 by Cycloonx

[Zerth]

uhh has no one thought about the effects this would have on pvp training? have to kill your partner for exp...

[Learner]

uhh has no one thought about the effects this would have on pvp training? have to kill your partner for exp...

[Cycloonx]

uhh has no one thought about the effects this would have on pvp training? have to kill your partner for exp...

 

pvp is too easy exp imo, so I don't care pvpers won't get exp

 

But killing someone in pk could give you some more exp ofcourse

[NitageR]

PK is good place to train your att :x

pvp with serps pro

 

Now i can get 130def in ~10 days, 10h of pvp per day (38m def exo to do).

Monsters..ummmm like 2 months lol

Edited June 11, 2006 by NitageR

[guidera]

I love the current a/d exp system , How would you be able to pvp with this new system? Fight for ages then eventually you kill them and get 500 exp? Fighting already rocks!

[majestyk]

Now i can get 130def in ~10 days, 10h of pvp per day (38m def exo to do).

 

Didn't anyone else think "OMG get a life" when reading this?

[NitageR]

I stopped play 2 months ago dude You don't know me soo..

I come only to pk. Coz training gives nothing 3 noobs with BoD and you are owned.

Edited June 12, 2006 by NitageR

[majestyk]

I stopped play 2 months ago dude You don't know me soo..

No, I don't know you, so I have to judge you by the things you are saying.

Basically I am only jealous - I would like to play for 10 hours per day, too

[NitageR]

I would like too

Edited June 12, 2006 by NitageR