Bring Back Large Experience Tables

[Sensuki]

One thing I miss about the Infinity Engine games is the old AD&D Level Progression tables, you get a much more satisfying feeling earning 1000XP for a quest, instead of 100XP (a la 3rd edition, Star Wars, all other games using that d20 model).

 

i really liked the fighter's progression table

 

Level 2: 2,000

Level 3: 4,000

Level 4: 8,000

Level 5: 16,000

Level 6: 32,000

Level 7: 64,000

Level 8: 125,000

Level 9: 250,000

Level 10+: +250,000 XP

 

But yeah larger numbers feels more rewarding (and more of a monolith to obtain).

 

In conjunction quest/monster XP rewards should be high too, for instance, 2,000 XP for defeating a Flesh Golem encounter, instead of say 200.

 

YMMV.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Sensuki

[Cantousent]

My God. hahaha Seriously, I have to say that the game is a totally new system. I much prefer... okay, this is atopic to which to respond in the morning. ...But I dsiagree.

[Sensuki]

I think you misunderstood my post.

 

I have been following all the information and am aware (and am happy to see) that they are moving to a quest experience model where you are not penalized for taking a non-martial route.

 

I am also aware that there may not be a traditional system. But there most likely will be a class system with a shared levelling table.

 

Ever since the introduction of 3rd edition D&D cRPGs (I think Pool of Radiance remake was the first), the experience tables for levelling and XP rewards have become small. Most (all) games including The Witcher series have used a levelling table system where you need 1,000XP for level 2 and ~ 190K for level 20 ? (from memory, cbf opening my 3E Players Handbook).

 

Sure it makes sense to use smaller numbers from a programming perspective as it takes up less bits of memory. But I miss the larger XP caps and rewards from the 2E era of games.

 

What's wrong with that?

Edited September 25, 2012 by Sensuki

[ET3D]

Good night, Cantousent.

 

I don't really mind. I couldn't care less about how much XP I get. Make a reasonable character progressions, if you tack some form of visible XP on it, that's okay, and it might as well be thousands of XP. Hell, make a slider of it, allowing people to get billions in XP if they wish.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I love the idea of an exponential XP curve like this, because it eliminates the need to auto-level companions to match the PC. With an exponential XP curve, any level 1 companion can be leveled to the PC's level minus one by leveling the PC a single level.

[horocaust]

If you want to up the scales needed for progression without slowing the progression itself — well, what's the point? Do you just feel it's not epic enough without big numbers?

[Sensuki]

I love the idea of an exponential XP curve like this, because it eliminates the need to auto-level companions to match the PC. With an exponential XP curve, any level 1 companion can be leveled to the PC's level minus one by leveling the PC a single level.

 

 

Yeah that's one of the reasons why it worked so well in Baldur's Gate 1 (and 2 especially), where you had certain quests that you needed certain NPCs for, such as requiring Valygar in the party to do the Planar Sphere stuff. That way you could trade people in and out as needed and they were still effective.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If you want to up the scales needed for progression without slowing the progression itself — well, what's the point? Do you just feel it's not epic enough without big numbers?

It's not the size of the numbers that matter. It's the curve.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Sylvius the Mad

[Darth Trethon]

Numbers are meaningless....it's all in how they're rewarded. Earning 10,000xp per enemy defeated makes 2 mil look like nothing while earning 1 xp per enemy defeated can make 2000 xp seem like a nightmarish requirement.

 

Why do people think that large numbers of xp required automatically make a certain level hard to reach or that low numbers of xp required means it's easy to reach?

[Sensuki]

No one's said that so far

 

But yes Sylvius has it, the curve is more important.

 

I was stating that I preferred the larger number system because of Nostalgia.

[trulez]

No.

[Mamoulian War]

YESH, OVER 9000!!!!

[Volourn]

There's advantages and disadvantages to both.

 

LARGE NUMBERS: - gives more lee way in the range of xp you can get. this means a dragon cna give you lots of xp compared to an orc

- just looks bloated and the higher the numbers needed it just looks silly and meaningless

 

LOW NUMBERS - easier to manage and not bloated

- you cna't really give all that much more xp for tough monsters, quest completions, and what not. ie. the dragon and orc in the above exmaple would not reward you all that much difference in actual xp. ... also for non combat xp picking a tough lock won't net you significantly more than an easy lock.

 

 

In conclusion, pick a reason number system that works for the game system and stick with it. DnD has used both type of systems and they both work fine,.

[TimB99]

Am I the only one who actually likes Skyrim's way of handling leveling up and experience and such much more?

 

To me it made much more sense to have X number of skills, and each skill could be advanced in depending on what you did with them in-game.

 

How would talking your way out of some situation earn you experience or even a level up, that could then yield you the awesome sword slash of doom skill?

 

On that similar note: I actually liked the no-classes mechanic. It made your character much more customizable, and really felt like you did your own thing (which is what an RPG should be all about, I'd say, up to a certain point, of course).

 

 

Plus, I'm not even sure I like the 'only 1000 exp points until I level up' kind of stuff.. Again, to me, the Skyrim idea of "I've practiced in skill X to the extent/duration Y such that I can control it much better than I could at first, and I can now learn new tricks for it" more than "Hey! I just killed a rat which made me gain enough EXP that I am now better in every aspect HOORAY!"

(and of course I exaggerate, but still...)

 

 

JM2C,

 

- Tim

Edited September 25, 2012 by TimB99

[Revan91]

I don't care about the character experience progression, at the end it doesn't count that much since if you need 2000 xp to level up you will get more xp from your quests and if you need 1000 xp the system will give you less xp, so you'd level up almost at the same time and in the same way.

I just want Obsidian to give you xp only for completing quests, and not also by killing things. The update #7 was great and hinted at this solution, and it would be just perfect, since you would be able to play the character the way you want without being penalised if you choose to avoid fightings.

[KhaineGB]

I actually prefer the 3.5 D&D XP tables.

 

However, I could get behind a slower levelling system IF (and I feel this is important) all classes level at the same rate. No 2k XP for a fighter, 1.25k for a thief, 2.5k for a mage... etc.

[Sensuki]

It's not really slower, it's just larger numbers in use with an exponential XP curve.

[Humanoid]

I want the XP system to be displayed in hexadecimal so it can be more arcane than any other designer could dream of!

 

 

 

But in all seriousness, I don't even care if I can see a number as long as there's a bar to approximate it visually.

[Magnum Opus]

If you want to up the scales needed for progression without slowing the progression itself — well, what's the point? Do you just feel it's not epic enough without big numbers?

It's not the size of the numbers that matter. It's the curve.

This, as you've already mentioned, also ties into my own sense of how easy or how difficult the game itself (and the rules it uses) makes it for me to identify with my party members.

 

With a linear progression, there's a game play need to introduce such nonsense as group leveling which makes no sense to me from an individual character standpoint. With that linear progression, though, that newb character will always be just as far behind my character as they were before, which messes with encounter balance and item usage (it items are restricted by character level) and who knows what else.

 

You also run into a more stringent need for that level cap: Baldur's Gate: TotSC had things like infinitely respawning monsters, but because of the exponential curve, there would come a point when it simply didn't matter how many times you rested in the wilderness: the XP you gained simply accounted for proportionately less of that next level you were grinding for in the first place. I actually removed the XP cap for that game with a mod once, and with the way I played the game (occasional monster grinding, resting in dungeons to try and replenish my mages spells, etc) it still didn't make a difference in terms of the levels my group of six characters were able to acquire. Not a single extra level was had by my removal of that XP cap. Which is good, because it means that the designers of the game and the system that game used actually got it right.

 

Basically, will agree with the notion that the choice of rule system for your game can make it easier on BOTH the players to identify with the story elements you're trying to convey with those rules, and the designers who have to try and put it all together. Nothing screams "poorly thought-out mechanics" like artificial limits and arbitrary barriers being thrown up all the time that, at best, do nothing to positively reinforce the story elements that are being portrayed, or, at worst, actively tear down the story your writers have created. This is what frustrates me so much about Bioware these days. The game, while still fun enough, simply ooze with such contradictions, to the detriment of the very story they're trying to tell.

[chisled2bone]

If it is all scaled and the same ratio, i dont understand the need for it all to be larger. Like if leveling at lvl 2 is 1000 xp and completing a quest gives you 100 xp, whats the difference if it is 10000xp for lvl 2 and completing a quest gives you 1000xp. Its all the same...

[chisled2bone]

I actually prefer the 3.5 D&D XP tables.

 

However, I could get behind a slower levelling system IF (and I feel this is important) all classes level at the same rate. No 2k XP for a fighter, 1.25k for a thief, 2.5k for a mage... etc.

 

To follow up on this, i dont know if it has been done before as the last cRPG i played was BG and that was so long ago i dont even remember the xp system, but if you got rewarded more for playing the game within your class. So if you are a thief and you complete a quest by being more stealthy and "thiefy" (i dont know, help me out here guys lol) you get more experience than if you just went in and battled like a fighter. Still get xp but since it was outside the character of your chosen class its less. Idk i think one should decide the way they want to play by the choice of their class, atleast thats what i do... your guy's thoughts?

[TrashMan]

In the words of Yahtzee..

 

 

Some poeple paly to get bigger number. So tehy cna can grind to get even bigger numbers. So their NUMBERS can be bigger than everyone elses NUMBER.

 

There is a part of me that wants an end to all leveling. Just to hear the sweet, sweet cry of those who only see value in numbers.

[Sensuki]

Sure I'd love a game that had no leveling system and completely revolved around player skill (I'm not old enough, but I recall some of the Ultima games being like that), but this game won't be

[alphyna]

It really warms my heart to see the things that people care about. Wow.

I mean, does it really matter? Progression does, the curve does, yeah, but the precise amount of experience?

 

Well, I guess, if you ask me, curves like this are easier to follow. You just have to remember that each level is twice as hard as the previous one, so it's easy to calculate where you stand. So my answer is yes, I suppose.

 

Still, what a wonderfully technical thing to desire.

[ogrezilla]

Am I the only one who actually likes Skyrim's way of handling leveling up and experience and such much more?

 

To me it made much more sense to have X number of skills, and each skill could be advanced in depending on what you did with them in-game.

 

How would talking your way out of some situation earn you experience or even a level up, that could then yield you the awesome sword slash of doom skill?

 

On that similar note: I actually liked the no-classes mechanic. It made your character much more customizable, and really felt like you did your own thing (which is what an RPG should be all about, I'd say, up to a certain point, of course).

 

 

Plus, I'm not even sure I like the 'only 1000 exp points until I level up' kind of stuff.. Again, to me, the Skyrim idea of "I've practiced in skill X to the extent/duration Y such that I can control it much better than I could at first, and I can now learn new tricks for it" more than "Hey! I just killed a rat which made me gain enough EXP that I am now better in every aspect HOORAY!"

(and of course I exaggerate, but still...)

 

 

JM2C,

 

- Tim

 

this tends to lead to a grinding playstyle, or at least a restricted one. It encourages the use of a few skills over and over instead of thinking of different ways to solve each problem. It makes sense from a realism/practice viewpoint, but I don't like it as a game mechanic.

Edited September 25, 2012 by ogrezilla