13 Sep, 2013, arholly wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Ok, so I was reading an article today about Law & Economics for a table top game (ACKS). It got me thinking about how players earn XP.

Would a system where players earned XP based on the value of items they acquire from area's be something that would workable in a mud? What would be some of the problems with such a system and thoughts on how to get around that. One thought is that loot from monsters or "found" loot would only be given to the first person who got it. For a group, it could total the loot value of the loot or come up with a method of dividing up the loot.

Thoughts?
14 Sep, 2013, quixadhal wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Elsewhere, I described the idea of just doing away with either gold or xp, and using one currency to do both tasks. In most MUD's they really are interchangable in nature, just not in mechanics.
14 Sep, 2013, Runter wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
arholly said:
Ok, so I was reading an article today about Law & Economics for a table top game (ACKS). It got me thinking about how players earn XP.

Would a system where players earned XP based on the value of items they acquire from area's be something that would workable in a mud? What would be some of the problems with such a system and thoughts on how to get around that. One thought is that loot from monsters or "found" loot would only be given to the first person who got it. For a group, it could total the loot value of the loot or come up with a method of dividing up the loot.

Thoughts?


Yes, it's workable, but I don't think it would be better. As in, I don't see any upside to doing so. For most intents and purposes it's the same difference but maybe less flexible.

To illustrate this, let's assume you have a formula that determines how much gold and xp you get derived from the difficulty of a fight, a quest reward, or something arbitrary. If xp to gold ratio for rewards is 1 to 1, although it could be anything, then we could see that killing a monster that yields 10 xp could also be designed to yield 10 gold. Or maybe 2 xp and 8 gold. In other words, we can see that 1 gold and 1 xp are the same value and that the total value of killing a monster is 10 units. In your system it would be like always having to award 5 xp and 5 gold for the same value reward no matter what. No 2g + 8 xp and no 8 gold+2xp.

Imagine also if we wanted to introduce some super awesome resource stat that represents items. If we know the relative value, now a monster can drop 1 gold, 1xp, or 1 item point. Let's say we assign it all to item and it's 10 item points. This wouldn't translate into a real stat players gather, more like 1 gold point = 1 gold generated, 1 xp point = 1 experience generated, or 1 item point = 1 more item level added for possible loot the monster can drop. Which may have been designed buy a builder, built by an algorithm, etc etc. The point is that it's just many ways of thinking about how to reward in balanced ways. Always giving exactly equal rewards in every resource would be, well, boring.

I might suggest that if you're interested in this from a mechanic level to spice up the game you might consider it just being a major way to play the game. Like an archaeology profession that levels up as you appraise things from dungeons. Which could certainly be derived from the value of the item.
14 Sep, 2013, KaVir wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
arholly said:
Would a system where players earned XP based on the value of items they acquire from area's be something that would workable in a mud? What would be some of the problems with such a system and thoughts on how to get around that. One thought is that loot from monsters or "found" loot would only be given to the first person who got it. For a group, it could total the loot value of the loot or come up with a method of dividing up the loot.

Thoughts?

In most implementations, loot usually has an inherent reward - it gives bonuses or benefits of some kind. This already tends to be enough incentive that many players choose an area to farm based on the loot they can find there.

But if you only earn exp from the loot, it removes the incentive to kill monsters that don't have any (and massively increases the incentive to kill mobs that have a lot of lootable gear). Expect to see players sneaking past animals and other mobs that have no loot, killing the armoured guards (all that lootable armour!), and using disarm tactics to flee with a stronger opponent's weapon rather than fighting to the death.

Then there's the problem of hoarding. If loot gives exp then players will pick up everything they find, but usually there's a pretty low limit on how much you can carry. If you earn the exp from being the first to pick something up, presumably you'll see people grabbing stuff and immediately dropping it all on the floor again, which I think would look a bit silly.

It would also make it easier to level-up a weaker player, as they could stand outside the room while you fight then run in afterwards to loot the corpse. Depending on how fast an area repopulates, you might even end up with groups of scavangers who rush through an area of dead mobs looking for any loot that's been left behind.

There are solutions, but it's something that would need to be factored into many aspects of the game design.
14 Sep, 2013, Hades_Kane wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm not sure about your question specifically, but we take an approach where we have quests that can only be completed once (or if completed multiple times, it can be tracked), and we give exp for completing quests. The higher difficulty of the quest, the more experience that is rewarded, along with other benefits.

Also, skill usage on mobs that are of similar or higher difficulty give exp too, until you have "mastered" the skill, at which point you no longer gain exp for it. This even extends to uses of the "sword" or "dual wield" etc. skills during the course of auto-round combat, along with manually entered skills such as bash.

Of course, killing a mob gives exp, too.

But anyhow, just some additional suggestions. I think the more varied way that players can earn exp, definitely the better as it really allows for a good flexibility in play style :)
14 Sep, 2013, Oliver wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
I actually really like this idea. To address some concerns from other people that have chimed in:

I don't think you'd see a problem with people only going after mobs that have a lot of lootable gear. After all, you'd have to tie the value of the items' XP gain to the value of the items, so all you'd have to do is fine-tune the value of the items on mobiles with lots of lootable gear.

Moreover, if people are disarming/thieving/etc. in order to get gear off of mobiles for the purposes of experience, is that much of a problem? If the game were adjusted to reload such stolen items on a regular basis, it'd just turn into another avenue for thief/disarmy types to gain XP using their class abilities, much like a warrior might just spam-kill.

I don't see this as mutating incentives. KaVir already mentioned that the incentivization to gather gear is usually the reward of the gear itself, but I don't think that tying XP into the same reward-system would alter the incentive structure, it would just sort of streamline it.
14 Sep, 2013, plamzi wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Oliver said:
I don't think you'd see a problem with people only going after mobs that have a lot of lootable gear. After all, you'd have to tie the value of the items' XP gain to the value of the items, so all you'd have to do is fine-tune the value of the items on mobiles with lots of lootable gear.


I think you're missing some of the pretty clear causes for concern that people have legitimately raised.

In the above case, e. g., what about mobs that have no lootable gear? With no reason to kill these, they will either have to perform some other function, or will become expensive filler. This kind of of filler is particularly bad because it makes a player burn through the content faster and get bored sooner.

Like KaVir said, there are solutions that can mitigate this problem (e. g. making sure every mob loads something) but they will not be quick work.

Oliver said:
Moreover, if people are disarming/thieving/etc. in order to get gear off of mobiles for the purposes of experience, is that much of a problem?


The key question here is, if a thief can go to mob Z that has disarmable gear, why would he or she bother with mobs A-Y?

Oliver said:
I don't see this as mutating incentives. KaVir already mentioned that the incentivization to gather gear is usually the reward of the gear itself, but I don't think that tying XP into the same reward-system would alter the incentive structure, it would just sort of streamline it.


I'm not sure what you mean by "streamline", but if you mean removing one of the best and easiest to use radio dials for adjusting game balance, then I would agree.

If you don't think you're losing flexibility by tying all exp to items, maybe a good way to illustrate that this is true would be by virtue of applying this idea to its extreme. What if we also made items the only source of gold, regeneration, and skills? That would "streamline" everything in such a way that you would only be left with one control dial. And introducing a single unbalanced item may lead to some characters becoming vastly superior to others, and to a single mob becoming the game's only meaningful target.
14 Sep, 2013, quixadhal wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Your goals for the game also make a difference.

If you're designing a PvP game where the Holy Mantra of Balance is the be-all and end-all of everything, you have a very different set of rules and concerns than if you're making a game where players are just supposed to have fun, or where they're actually progressing through a storyline and the progression is just a gating mechanic for that story.

People on here tend to over-emphasize balance and mechanics, because they're used to dealing with min-maxers, and attempting to cater to their desires. If the players you're aiming to attract are not the hyper-competitive ones who care more about getting to the end FIRST, than getting to the end… take the balance issues with a grain of salt. Don't ignore them, but don't put all your effort into making sure a thief and a warrior both take exactly 3 days, 22 hours, 15 minutes, and 12 seconds of play time to hit level 10.
14 Sep, 2013, Oliver wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
plamzi said:
In the above case, e. g., what about mobs that have no lootable gear? With no reason to kill these, they will either have to perform some other function, or will become expensive filler. This kind of of filler is particularly bad because it makes a player burn through the content faster and get bored sooner.


These mobs can serve as challenges that impede you from your goal: gathering equipment from these areas.

Quote
The key question here is, if a thief can go to mob Z that has disarmable gear, why would he or she bother with mobs A-Y?


Why should s/he have to bother with those mobs if those are mobs you're intended to fight straight out? Presumably the balance behind giving thieves steal and disarm is that they have fewer combat capabilities, no?

Quote
What if we also made items the only source of gold, regeneration, and skills? That would "streamline" everything in such a way that you would only be left with one control dial.


What if we were to remove stats alltogether and giving everyone a power-rating ala DBZ with which they compete?

I don't understand your argument. We were specifically talking about the concept of merging two mechanics: loot/currency collection and XP gain.
15 Sep, 2013, plamzi wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
Your goals for the game also make a difference.

People on here tend to over-emphasize balance and mechanics, because they're used to dealing with min-maxers, and attempting to cater to their desires. If the players you're aiming to attract are not the hyper-competitive ones…


Maybe people here emphasize balance because the context is online games in which players usually are able to compare themselves to other players directly. In that context, if you don't have balance=fair play, people will quit in disgust.

A single-player game, or a game in which interaction with other players is limited, is a very different beast.
15 Sep, 2013, quixadhal wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Agreed, as is an online game where the player base isn't hyper-competitive, and encouraged to be so even more by the mechanics, which tend to favor power players and content consumption, as opposed to cooperation and world-building.
16 Sep, 2013, Runter wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Sorry, this is a tangent but something I've been thinking about.

You might consider toying around with a linear progression system.

I've considered making it so that the distance in XP requirement from level to level remains the same, but the only way to get experience is to complete new objectives, making it so you have to venture deeper and into harder areas to progress.

A simple fix to the kill npc for XP issue is making diminishing returns every time you kill a certain NPC, until it's zero.

The main thing I hate in most games is the grind required to get to the next level after it scales so high. So I'd be very interested to see a game where you can play for 15 minutes at level 1 and get to level 2, or play 15 minutes at level 59 and get to level 60 (assuming you aren't failing on the harder content.)
16 Sep, 2013, Idealiad wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
It is a tangent, but there's a point to the non-linear progression. You better have a good endgame if you do it linearly. Also slowing down progression allows newer players to catch up, promoting group play.
16 Sep, 2013, quixadhal wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
The only way to really promote group play is to REQUIRE groups to complete certain content.

Sorry, but I have yet to play a MUD, in the last 20 years, that wouldn't allow me to get from level 1 to whatever "endgame" was, entirely solo. Like many MMO's today, the "multi-player" part seems to be "multiple people all soloing at once, and competing against each other for loot/bragging rights/whatever."

Very few require groups, and those that do tend to get slammed in reviews for not being "casual friendly".
16 Sep, 2013, Idealiad wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
I should clarify, by group play I don't mean 'people united in a group', but more like playing with your peers – so a level 1 with/against a level 50 is not group play (well in some sense it is…but you get the idea). If two level 50s are soloing, they are at least in some sense competing for the same resources so it's a basic form of 'group play'.
16 Sep, 2013, Runter wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Idealiad said:
It is a tangent, but there's a point to the non-linear progression. You better have a good endgame if you do it linearly. Also slowing down progression allows newer players to catch up, promoting group play.


I see your point, but in most of these popular games the real game is the endgame, and a significant amount of time isn't required as an initial investment to get players to a maximum level. I.e. the grindy type of progression can be built into the end game rather than the leveling process.

So I agree with you, I just disagree with where the progression that's non-linear should begin.

I should also mention there's ways to cope with level differences, like opening the range at which players can play together, and making solo play more viable until endgame. I know tons of people who can't stand to invest in the grind in games like WoW, but gladly pay 500-1000 dollars for a max level character so they can start progressing in endgame. I lean towards that group of players, so I'm interested in exploring a system that lets people minimally invest before getting to that point.

The other thing I'll say is that I don't know any muds out there with sufficient endgame content, so take this with a grain of salt and the understanding that such a game would need to be more oriented towards that type of content– goal oriented instead of grind oriented.
09 Oct, 2013, Nathan wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, if you consider an encounter to be worth points, then you could set it up with fixed points where the xp/money ratio that you receive depends on your level/times you've done it. So you can do the same thing over and over but at some point you only get money and quit receiving experience. You could even scale the currency down if you have multiple currency levels (gold old copper, silver, gold).

Really, I think you should get experience for doing something "difficult" for the character and money only when there ought to be money. I.e. no money for killing wolves, which would mean you'd kill them only for xp (which ought to decrease as it becomes less difficult to kill the wolf) or some part of the corpse if you have a crafting system that lets you skin things. Great items should come from making it, stealing it, or finding a hoard (dragons, maybe kobolds,..), etc. So if you kill the city guards you can get their armour. You might need to add things to your game to get money from, like having the npc questgivers pay you to do something rather than you just doing it out of the goodness of your heart and being a fortunate adventurer who finds gold and treasure. With a sufficiently complicated system, you could have npcs commission crafted stuff.

Of course, that's all if you are concerned with having some realism.



The way Guild Wars 2 does group activities and whatnot is one way of handling the grind. If you play that game with a few friends and you go after low numbers of things that are stronger than any one of you (bonus xp for killing things of a higher level than you), then you can level quite quickly. In WoW the grind is largely due to the game being more or less one long set of solo quests until you reach raid level. Giving experience for helping to kill something and not just getting the killing blow would shift the dynamic a little bit. You could manually set up a way to reward people for expected emergent behavior (at least for them), but that requires you to figure out what all *could* technically be done which would be an arduous task.
0.0/17