XP system flawed?

[King Semos]

Yes, and it's a very nice opinion, I'm sure, but you haven't provided any sort of rationale, justification, or support.

What, the hell.. lol. Are you kidding me? I feel like you hardly read my posts, and regardless that they make perfect sense, you address them as if they don't. It's hard to even continue this conversation I feel like I'm talking to a rude crazy person.

You have not argued that this is a desireable trait.

Boldly stated sir. But considering desire is subjective, I don't understand how that's arguable. And considering I have given reasons why its desirable to me and others have agreed with me, I don't understand how this thought conjured in your brain.

You have not shown a way in which this model produces a better game experience than other designs do.

Excellent observation. I have not. Apparently other games are irrelevant if you've forgotten. Do you even read your own posts?

You have not offered any real arguments against the way every other RPG has done this, except a hilariously blatant appeal to how you expect old-school gamers to hate WoW.

So wait, ok other RPGS's are relevant again, regardless of you telling me more than once they aren't. Ok so what's this question asking me? If Grimrocks system works differently than other RGP's? For the most part, yes. I think we can all agree on this yes?

Hilariously Blatant Appeal! lol? I'm somewhat of an oldschool gamer. Though I played a lot of WoW, some of it was very enjoyable, some of it wasn't. Do I expect old-school gamers to hate WoW? Hmm, yeah that's a common trend.

And I am assuming you have never actually played WoW, as its XP system is pretty totally non-comparable.) Oh, and a completely point-missing rant about keeping people even, which is unrelated to the core issue. The core issue is that one player might get 50% more XP for the same monsters, killed with the same characters, than another.

My /played is probably something like 4000 hours.

You've also done nothing to explain how it makes sense that everyone in the party gets 100% XP if you have a single mage move from one slot to another tossing poison clouds, or that the mage who actually did all the damage could get half XP. (Use poison cloud. Cast poison cloud, then move the mage to another slot. When something dies from the cloud, the person now in the slot you were in when you cast it gets full XP, the mage gets half.

Boom. Flaw. I can agree 100% that this is a flaw, I never did disagree with this. They should fix that, but still maintain characters who don't do any damage to mobs only get half. As a personal preference for reasons I have already explained.

Meanwhile, I've offered actual game design considerations, with solid numbers rather than vague anecdotes, and pointed out concrete ways in which the rationalizations on offer do not actually work.

Yes, you have. The whole character slot swap, very observant, good work. My original post was directed to the actual topic of the thread though. That being how xp isn't divided evenly but instead is given in full to everyone that tags the monster, and half to everyone that doesn't. So excluding your slot swap flaw, and instead talking about the actual topic, you haven't.

[Thels]

Side note: Where is all the WoW hate coming from? WoW might not appeal to some of you, which is entirely fine. However, it's such a totally different kind of game, that there's no real way to compare the two, so there's really no point in discussing what WoW does wrong. Let's just focus on LoG, shall we?

But I would directly blame WoW amongst others for setting a trend for this min/maxing approach to RPGs, and resulting in this overwhelming false sense of entitlement (although that is a modern cultural problem rather than just a game related phenomenon).

I think the problem here is considering WoW and LoG to be of the same genre, which I personally do not. Maximizing your build, talents and rotation is something important in WoW, crucial to defeat the next raid boss or not. It's a part of WoW and other MMOs and appeals to some, but not to others. The thing I personally enjoyed most about WoW is going in with a group of 4/9/19/24/39 friends and see what you can do with some teamwork.

Saving and reloading for level ups to max HPs is cheating, in the same way rerolling every dice throw until you got a 20 would be cheating in a game of D&D - a game where at least consequences are permanent. No matter what went wrong with my party, if there was one survivor I kept on playing. Hell I then went and clicked save - what happens has happened, and the game is more fun for doing that. Imagine the journal of the party that does a "perfect" run, no hardships will have been faced, every secret found in seconds without hours of studying walls on an empty stomach, no "I stabbed the last spider in the face and dragged the rest of the party back to the life crystal with my bare hands" etc.

I actually had a character (D&D 3.5, Crusader from Bo9S) that was allowed to reroll a save once per day. When he bit the dust after failing a saving throw, I even forgot about the ability until a few weeks later, when I was already settled into my next character.

When I DM games, I always use fixed stats for attributes and HP. I don't see the merit of rolling a die for a stat that will stick to you permanently. Likewise, I don't see the merit of just going with a fluke where I rolled 1 for Health and Energy when I could have rolled 3 for both. I can't imagine epic tales over "Hey, I gained 7 HP last level, instead of 5 or 6!". I'd be less inclined to hit reload over a dead character than over my tank rolling a 1 for his HP.

Anyway, play the game how you want, but accept the system as it is. It's not "flawed." Someone designed it to be the way it is, with all the advantages and benefits that come with that. It may inhibit your style of spreadsheet analysis - or "play" if you could call it that - but you can always mod that away and make your own sandbox to throw rocks in.

Well, other than the XP gain being aligned to slot rather than character. [/quote]But yeah, I don't see the XP system as flawed, just as an interesting choice that the Devs made.

I'm just a perfectionist through and through, so since I'm not bothering anyone else by reloading until I maxed my Health and Energy, as this is a single player game, I will continue to do so, like I did in the good old days of EoB.

One thing I would like to see implemented is experience for non-monster successes, solving puzzles and finding secrets (although there is an argument that the secret and items are their own reward).

I was actually surprised to notice only monsters give XP.

It's not a big deal really, more often than not there's an extra few monsters in the secret rooms so in a way you do get extra XP, and it seems a silly thing if all players will be getting full XP but it's just fun to solve something and all of a sudden there's a level up. You feel even more clever for it!

Yeah, I'm not saying it was a big deal. I'm just surprised about it. For a game that's high on puzzles, I had expected solving those puzzles and secrets to earn you XP.

[Kostas]

If it was a game based around convenience like WoW, it would be a flaw.

If certain classes get penalized for it, so be it. The end result is really the same regardless. The worst I've had a character fall behind is one level, that being a mage. That being because his fire couldn't hurt Uggardians. However he shielded my group with fire resistance proving useful still. Since he lagged behind, I gave him a Tome of Infinite Wisdom, and Bam. Inconvenience solved.

That's just how I see it though.

This has nothing to do with convenience.
How is how much xp you gain from mobs a convenience? Maybe you chose the wrong word.
This is about a flaw in the logic of xp shares. No other game has used such a system as far as I know. It just feels wrong.
With my proposed system you'd get the exact same result as in your example with mage falling behind in lvls. The only difference would be the party total xp would be different.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Not sure why you think this is a flaw.

Well, definitely a flaw: It's per slot, not per character. Swap a mage into all four slots damaging a quad of skeletons, all four characters get full XP.

I think it's a flaw: You get substantially less XP for the same mobs depending on how you fight them, and in general this massively penalizes warriors and rogues, especially on skeleton quads and the like. It's surprisingly hard to get everyone to have tagged a specific skeleton before it dies, let alone to do so in an efficient way.

Look at it this way: Would you rather get 10,000 XP for killing a given population of monsters, or 6,250 for the same population of monsters, killed by the same characters, same level, and everything? For that matter, is it a good thing that the way you get 10k XP instead of 6,250 is by playing in ways that are otherwise ludicrously inefficient?

There's a reason that most systems use a fixed XP total per mob, and divide that up. (Note also that virtually nothing in traditional RPGs uses a division other than "living party members", because measuring only damage penalizes you for, say, having someone healing other party members, or using utility abilities, and so on.)

Totally correct.
So there's a bug in there too as well as the flaw in logic.

[Kostas]

Do you see me worrying? nope
do you see micro-managing my attacks so everyone gets "tagged"? nope
do you see me complaining that XP system is flawed? nope

I am in fact relieved that the XP system pays 100% Exp to EVERYONE who dealt damage (and 50% to those who didnt) instead of 25% to everyone alive... If math over there is the same as it is over here, that is from TWO TIMES to FOUR TIMES more experience than what the other system provides.

So because you are not worried we shouldn't? How is that an argument?
And your arithmetic example is just total fail too.
You're happy that you get more xp in the current system from an imaginary system that no one proposed.
Obviously if a snail gives 60xp per person now (30xp to those that missed it), in a better system it would give 240xp divided among party members. Same total, less fuss. There's still room there to give bigger shares to some chars and have chars not all 4 lvlup at the same time and whatnot.
So guys stop complaining about stuff nobody said.

I all the threads that describe some anomalies in the game, the posts are alle the same: Some simply want to know, how the system works, others explain it to them and state, that the system is flawed. Then many people come and say, that they do not see that flaw, and that they have fun, and all the other should accept it or go play other games or the like..... it's always the same.

AMEN!

[Darklord]

Hey Guys,

Please chill things down.

Daniel.

[Kostas]

But I would directly blame WoW amongst others for setting a trend for this min/maxing approach to RPGs, and resulting in this overwhelming false sense of entitlement (although that is a modern cultural problem rather than just a game related phenomenon).

Saving and reloading for level ups to max HPs is cheating, in the same way rerolling every dice throw until you got a 20 would be cheating in a game of D&D - a game where at least consequences are permanent. No matter what went wrong with my party, if there was one survivor I kept on playing. Hell I then went and clicked save - what happens has happened, and the game is more fun for doing that. Imagine the journal of the party that does a "perfect" run, no hardships will have been faced, every secret found in seconds without hours of studying walls on an empty stomach, no "I stabbed the last spider in the face and dragged the rest of the party back to the life crystal with my bare hands" etc.

Anyway, play the game how you want, but accept the system as it is. It's not "flawed." Someone designed it to be the way it is, with all the advantages and benefits that come with that. It may inhibit your style of spreadsheet analysis - or "play" if you could call it that - but you can always mod that away and make your own sandbox to throw rocks in.

LOL that's just not true. WoW set no trend regarding min/maxing approach to RPGs. That started a long time before WoW was even on the drawing board and partially it's not a bad thing (it shows a player's interest in the game being played).
I guess you're just letting your dislike of WoW get the better of you. I played WoW long ago, it was fun for what it was, when I played. Then I moved on. I've played RPGs for 25 years now. Min/maxing was always there. Role playing eh not so much. And there's even less in computer RPGs, and even less in dungeon crawlers like LoG. So you're left with min/maxing for combat purposes and solving puzzles. Aren't you?

So now saving and reloading is cheating? You mean something the DEVs did is a flaw? Because you don't like it? But all the other complains about flaws that you like are not erm real flaws? We should just shut up about it?

So if someone designs something to be the way it is, then it is not flawed? How is that a logical argument? Are people infallible? Are there no better and fairer ways to do some things? Never?
This is a forum. We are here to discuss the game and try to make it better. You can't use the "Shut up and take it" argument here (or the "it is cause I say it is" argument). None of you guys. Please stop it all of you. Let's have rational discussions.

[Thels]

Obviously if a snail gives 60xp per person now (30xp to those that missed it), in a better system it would give 240xp divided among party members. Same total, less fuss. There's still room there to give bigger shares to some chars and have chars not all 4 lvlup at the same time and whatnot.

You mean in a "different" system, not necessarily a "better" system.

That something is done way A in LoG and way B in all other games does not mean LoG is doing it wrong. It means LoG is doing it different. However, it should be kept in mind as part of the whole system, not on it's own. Since your characters can and frequently will miss out on XP, the game is balanced around your characters leveling a little slower than would be completely optimal.

You can still get the optimal XP by making sure each character always tags each mob (really not that hard to do, especially considering ranged weapons always hit), so if you love to min-max stuff, you are able to get a little more XP in than the game's balanced around, which might actually interest some players.

[King Semos]

This has nothing to do with convenience.
How is how much xp you gain from mobs a convenience? Maybe you chose the wrong word.
This is about a flaw in the logic of xp shares. No other game has used such a system as far as I know. It just feels wrong.
With my proposed system you'd get the exact same result as in your example with mage falling behind in lvls. The only difference would be the party total xp would be different.

I've seen many people talk about the XP in different threads, they find it an inconvenience that they have to tag each monster with every character so they know everyone gets full xp. So actually it has a lot to do with convenience.

Now everyone, please stop engaging me into arguments. I posted my opinion, didn't realise I was signing up for a debate. Ty

[Kostas]

Obviously if a snail gives 60xp per person now (30xp to those that missed it), in a better system it would give 240xp divided among party members. Same total, less fuss. There's still room there to give bigger shares to some chars and have chars not all 4 lvlup at the same time and whatnot.

You mean in a "different" system, not necessarily a "better" system.

Technically yes, but at this point I think we've proven that a different system would be better logically (naysayers notwithstanding).

The game is NOT balanced around your characters leveling a little slower than would be completely optimal. You can still lvlup almost optimally. The DEVs could still raise the xp required per lvlup. This is just not a proper argument in this case sorry.
Our whole point is that assigning xp totals to mobs is more logical.
After that all is fair game. Shares don't have to be equal. Leveling speed can be adjusted.
I'll give you that if dead chars didn't get shares then that could lead to over-leveling one char parties, but would that be so terrible after all? It's not like it would become too imba. Providing xp for higher lvls scaled properly and power kept on increasing in small linear steps like now.

You can still get the optimal XP... look at your wording there. It's like you're saying you "can" still do it despite the flaws. You're almost admitting unconsciously that there is a flaw there.

OK lets discuss this properly guys. Put on your Metagaming hats. What does this system offers that others do not?
Remember you can have varied lvl chars with other systems too, don't bring that up again (it's a fallacious argument).
What do other systems offer?
Discuss logically, from a game designer's perspective, not from emotional backgrounds.

I think the current system is frustrating for some players for obvious reasons (detailed earlier).
Also it's harder to balance the combat since players will be different party lvls even if they start with the exact same party.
(OK don't tell me the game doesn't need balance cause it's too easy anyway, this is just a discussion of merits of xp systems. Besides if you think the game is too easy or it's won in other parts (strafing, etc) then why do you care about the xp system anyway? It shouldn't matter one way or the other to you)
If the system was changed to a per mob xp total with shares of that, how would it ruin your enjoyment of the game? Level up ranges may have to be adjusted, but they seem randomly chosen out of a hat anyway so no big deal. I haven't seen anyone here explain how it would matter to them? It wouldn't even remove the tedious process of tagging enemies. Everything would be nearly the same. Except you'd have more control over pushing some chars.

[seebs]

Yes, and it's a very nice opinion, I'm sure, but you haven't provided any sort of rationale, justification, or support.

What, the hell.. lol. Are you kidding me? I feel like you hardly read my posts, and regardless that they make perfect sense, you address them as if they don't. It's hard to even continue this conversation I feel like I'm talking to a rude crazy person.

I read your posts. But the thing is, you've advanced emotional arguments. You haven't actually argued the substance of the point.

I will admit cheerfully to "a bit rude", but "crazy" seems a bit strong. Here's the thing: I'm not irrational. I'm excessively rational.

You have not argued that this is a desireable trait.

Boldly stated sir. But considering desire is subjective, I don't understand how that's arguable.

The word "desireable", when speaking about design, means "leading to effects which improve the design", and you can generally argue it pretty effectively for a trait which actually offers benefits.

You haven't shown any benefits, though. What you've argued is solely that you don't care about the issue and you have a way of playing where you have fun without thinking about this. That's a negative defense; you're not arguing that the feature is good, only that it's not bad. If you actually play the way you say you do, the feature could be changed in any of a number of ways (such as "full XP always awarded, division varies based on who attacked") and you wouldn't even notice.

To argue that a feature is good, it's not enough to argue that it's not bad; you have to show why any alternative would make the game less fun.

And considering I have given reasons why its desirable to me and others have agreed with me, I don't understand how this thought conjured in your brain.

Very simple: I read what you actually said, not what you maybe meant by it, and I don't care whether people "agree" or not. I care whether arguments are correct. This forum is full of people who will insist that a given design is absolutely correct even after a dev has confirmed that it is a bug and not working as intended. That people "agree" with an appeal to emotion saying that the game is lovely (which it is) without really thinking about it is not persuasive.

You have not offered reasons why the design as-is is good. You've only offered reasons that it doesn't bother you, and again: If the claims you've advanced about your play style are true, you wouldn't even notice if the game's XP calculation were changed.

You have not shown a way in which this model produces a better game experience than other designs do.

Excellent observation. I have not. Apparently other games are irrelevant if you've forgotten. Do you even read your own posts?

I do, and apparently better than you do. I didn't say that all other games were irrelevant. I said that your appeal to old-school gamer hatred of WoW was irrelevant. Your argument about people expecting "convenience" after playing WoW would become relevant if shared XP were a feature introduced by WoW and not previously standard in the RPG industry; in fact, it's been around since before there were RPG-themed computer games.

You have not offered any real arguments against the way every other RPG has done this, except a hilariously blatant appeal to how you expect old-school gamers to hate WoW.

So wait, ok other RPGS's are relevant again, regardless of you telling me more than once they aren't.

Except I never said that.

How about this crazy experiment: Try going back and reading my posts, but this time, read what I actually say, not what you think I might have meant by it. Just look at what I actually said.

Finally:

Yes, you have. The whole character slot swap, very observant, good work. My original post was directed to the actual topic of the thread though. That being how xp isn't divided evenly but instead is given in full to everyone that tags the monster, and half to everyone that doesn't. So excluding your slot swap flaw, and instead talking about the actual topic, you haven't.

And this, again, is why you need to learn to read more carefully.

The primary complaint is not about the division of the XP, but about the total XP.

The main thing I want is a game in which a skeleton is worth the same total number of XP regardless of how it is killed. If there exists a way for a given party to kill a skeleton and gain 360 XP, every way of killing that skeleton should give 360 XP. I don't care how it's divided. I don't care whether it goes only to people who did damage, or only to people who were damaged, or only to people who used an ability while near the monster, or what. I just want the total to be constant, the way it has been in basically every RPG ever, because the alternative creates perverse incentives which are bad game design.

And that's the thing. The actual topic is not just the division, but the effects that division has on total rewards for killing monsters. And if you haven't spotted that, this is the time for you to realize that you are glossing over things and making assumptions.

Learn to see the world you are actually in, not the one that fits your internal narrative.