Let's Not Have Everyone Level At Once

[jethro]

Sorry, double post

Edited November 16, 2013 by jethro

[Kaczor]

From what I read its likely that you'll find your self in situation where you'll have to part with some of your NPCs. Also we have a stronghold, where we can send our extra NPCs and even send them to missions to level up, so they don't get far behind. It seem like this will offer a far more flexible gameplay in term of your companions, no more core group that you have to stick with it to the end.

If a player will be forced to change NPCs from time to time, this whole tread is pointless as all the characters will end up with different amounts of XP.

 

Fighters are not inherently anti-stealth, and giving characters EXP rewards for playing "to their type" sounds boring as heck.

Well, it certainly sounds more interesting than giving equal rewards to everyone, doesn't it? Being anti-X was discussed some posts ago ( http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64585-lets-not-have-everyone-level-at-once/page-3?do=findComment&comment=1387800 ). Is it enough to convince You?

 

There are no morality requirements for paladins or clerics (or anyone - PE does not have an alignment system).

Oh... Is that confirmed? I always thought they will worship some sort of god and obey his commandments?

[Tamerlane]

Fighters are not inherently anti-stealth, and giving characters EXP rewards for playing "to their type" sounds boring as heck.

Well, it certainly sounds more interesting than giving equal rewards to everyone, doesn't it? Being anti-X was discussed some posts ago ( http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64585-lets-not-have-everyone-level-at-once/page-3?do=findComment&comment=1387800 ). Is it enough to convince You?

No?

 

...

 

Yeah, no. Not at all, really. Everyone levelling up at the same time is a minor irritant. Fussing around to make sure I'm doing just the right things to get just the right EXP rewards for just the right classes sounds annoying as hell. Honestly, if it's that big an issue, I'd rather just see one random party member take -5% EXP and another take +5% EXP each time you gain experience. No punishing mages for trying to sneak and stuff.

 

EDIT: As things stand right now (and naturally, this is subject to change), non-active party members actually take a small EXP penalty. 5% or 10% or something like that.

 

There are no morality requirements for paladins or clerics (or anyone - PE does not have an alignment system).

Oh... Is that confirmed? I always thought they will worship some sort of god and obey his commandments?

 

 

Clerics (priests, properly) are religious, yes. No idea what if anything that entails, as we haven't had a priest update yet. Paladins are not an inherently religious class. At the very least, "no being evil" is not a general priest requirement.

 

EDIT: The Kickstarter page, on the topic of priests, says this: "Such men and women have found a divine link to their chosen deity, but their abilities stem solely from within."

Edited November 16, 2013 by Tamerlane

[Kaczor]

Everyone levelling up at the same time is a minor irritant. Fussing around to make sure I'm doing just the right things to get just the right EXP rewards for just the right classes sounds annoying as hell. Honestly, if it's that big an issue, I'd rather just see one random party member take -5% EXP and another take +5% EXP each time you gain experience. No punishing mages for trying to sneak and stuff.

In early game stages leveling up whole party may be game-changing (see ICWD series). It may or may not be of some concern in P:E. Fussing around to maximize XP will be annoying and stupid, no matter how it will be implemented. It is not H'n'S game, where XP is the only indicator of one's progression. And it is not about punishing mages for trying to sneak, but about rewarding them for doing "mage stuff".

 

Clerics (priests, properly) are religious, yes. No idea what if anything that entails, as we haven't had a priest update yet. Paladins are not an inherently religious class. At the very least, "no being evil" is not a general priest requirement.

 

EDIT: The Kickstarter page, on the topic of priests, says this: "Such men and women have found a divine link to their chosen deity, but their abilities stem solely from within."

I was an oversimplification on my side, I admit. Let me reformulate it: characters like priests or paladins should be penalized for breaching their beliefs, whatever these beliefs are. Said page says also this:

"Dedicated to spreading the news of their gods' dominions in the realms of mortals through their own deeds, adventuring priests thrust themselves into lethal conflict to prove their worth. Often trained to fight alongside soldiers of their respective churches, priests are capable in the fray (and near the fray, for those who follow less melee-oriented faiths), but their true power comes from their prayers, faith-inspired miracles that aid their allies and punish their enemies. These miracles range from combat blessings, weapon enchantments, and protective barriers to divine summons, sanctified wards, and crippling curses. In many ways, the prayers of priests have almost as much variety as wizards spells, though priests are restricted to invoking prayers that are aligned with their faith."

[Mor]

 

From what I read its likely that you'll find your self in situation where you'll have to part with some of your NPCs. Also we have a stronghold, where we can send our extra NPCs and even send them to missions to level up, so they don't get far behind. It seem like this will offer a far more flexible gameplay in term of your companions, no more core group that you have to stick with it to the end.

If a player will be forced to change NPCs from time to time, this whole tread is pointless as all the characters will end up with different amounts of XP.

 

I doubt we will be forced, but its possible that the issue in question might not present itself. Edited November 17, 2013 by Mor

[Tamerlane]

 

Everyone levelling up at the same time is a minor irritant. Fussing around to make sure I'm doing just the right things to get just the right EXP rewards for just the right classes sounds annoying as hell. Honestly, if it's that big an issue, I'd rather just see one random party member take -5% EXP and another take +5% EXP each time you gain experience. No punishing mages for trying to sneak and stuff.

In early game stages leveling up whole party may be game-changing (see ICWD series). It may or may not be of some concern in P:E. Fussing around to maximize XP will be annoying and stupid, no matter how it will be implemented. It is not H'n'S game, where XP is the only indicator of one's progression. And it is not about punishing mages for trying to sneak, but about rewarding them for doing "mage stuff".

 

What is "mage stuff"? Cast an invisibility spell? Hey, you're sneaking with Mage Stuff. Shoot a fireball? You're fighting with Mage Stuff. You brewed us up something? Awesome, so did the barbarian. Y'all should compare notes. Want to reward a class for doing "class stuff"? That's already mechanically implemented. It's why rogues have a naturally high Sneak and fighters have a naturally high Deflection. So they're good at doing Their Stuff.

 

Like I said, if you badly want to implement some variation in level timing, throw a small XP lottery in to the every quest to vary the rewards slightly. Or steal a page from a JRPG and give the player bonus EXP to distribute as they see fit. Or... anything that doesn't involve some silly "Wait, am I playing to type?" minigame.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Tamerlane

[neo6874]

 

It still falls apart after approximately ten levels (assuming I'm following your math properly)

 

Math 

FLOOR((BASE_XP*LEVEL) + (CLS_MOD * ((1/TOTAL_CLASSES) * ((BASE_XP*(LEVEL+1) - (BASE_XP*LEVEL))))),1)

Where:

• BASE_XP = Base XP for the leveling system (e.g. 1,000)
• LEVEL = Current Level (e.g. 1)
• CLS_MOD = Class number (0,1,2,...)
• TOTAL_CLASSES = Total number of classes

 

Sorry, but you simply seem to have miscalculated your tables. I said x(n) is the xp you need to achieve level n. You substituted this with BASE_XP*LEVEL, fine.

 

But then your fighter has CLS_MOD of 0, so his leveling scheme is exactly xp(LEVEL)= BASE_XP*LEVEL, which should produce the sequence 1000,2000,3000,4000. But in your table it is 0, 1000, 3000, 6000 ??? Could it be that you used a spreadsheet and forgot to adapt the function used ?

 

 

I read the formula x(n) is applied to the "NEXT_LVL_XP" column (i.e. x(n) = XP_BASE * CUR_LVL)  -- so the fighter progresses exactly as in D&D 3e rules ... whereas the rogue needs an additional 333 XP/ level, and the wizard needs an additional 666 XP/level.

 

• The first column is a given level (e.g. 1).
• The second column is the XP required to progress to the next level (e.g. "1,000" for L1 -> L2) -- the progression for the fighter is 1k, 2k, 3k, 4k ... 
• The third column is the minimum XP required to hit that level (and is just the summation of all previous levels) ... so the "Required XP" for a L4 fighter is 6,000 total XP; because 1k + 2k + 3k = 6k [Edit --- Or put another way, it's the total XP that has been earned thus far by the fighter]

 

I suppose that you could be saying that a fighter needs 1,000 XP to level at any level, be it L1 (1,000 XP*) -> L2 (2,000 XP) or L19 (19,000 XP) -> L20 (20,000 XP) ... but that means things that "should" become easy (e.g. picking a lock) give "the same" XP as when you were L1 --> picking 10 locks and getting an extra 100 XP at L1 is essentially 1.5 encounters worth of XP .... picking 10 locks and getting 100 XP at L18 (when you need 18k to progress) is pretty much nothing. Unless, of course you're also throwing in some other weird maths that start reducing XP payouts for doing little things like that... which pretty much ends up at "complexity for complexity's sake"

 

 

*I put L1 at 1,000 XP to keep the progression "proper" assuming you literally mean a character's total XP at any one level will be "CUR_LVL * (1000 + (modifier)) " 

 

 

 

Edit 2 -- actually, can you throw in a table with your proposed level progression  up to L20 (just for a fighter is fine) so that I can actually see what you're proposing rather than just guessing at it?

Edited November 17, 2013 by neo6874

[jethro]

I read the formula x(n) is applied to the "NEXT_LVL_XP" column (i.e. x(n) = XP_BASE * CUR_LVL)  -- so the fighter progresses exactly as in D&D 3e rules ... whereas the rogue needs an additional 333 XP/ level, and the wizard needs an additional 666 XP/level.

No, as I said n is the number of the level not some xp value. x(17) should have been 136000 in your system. The formula that does that is x(n) = (n-1)*n*500. Try it, x(1) is 0, x(2) is 1000 and x(17) is 136000.

If you insert that into my formula, you get:

 

x(n,p,c)= (n-1)*n*500 + p * 1/c * (n*(n+1)*500-(n-1)*n*500)

 

or after simplification:

 

x(n,p,c)= (n-1+2*p/c) * n * 500

 

with

x= exp points you need in total

n= level

c= number of classes

p= your class, from 0..(c-1)

 

So a fighter at level 17 with 5 classes would need x(17,0,5)= (17-1+2*0/5)*17*500 = 136000 xp. Seems correct

 

A rogue with p=1 would need x(17,1,5)= (17-1+2*1/5)*17*500 = 139400 xp , the mage x(17,2,5)= (17-1+2*2/5)*17*500 = 142800 xp.

 

Our fifth and last class would have x(17,4,5)= 149600 xp.

 

And the fighter at level 18 would need x(18,0,5)= (18-1+2*0/5)*18*500) = 153000 xp, *after* any other class reached level 17.

 

 

Edit 2 -- actually, can you throw in a table with your proposed level progression  up to L20 (just for a fighter is fine) so that I can actually see what you're proposing rather than just guessing at it?

The thing is, my function doesn't care what level progression is wanted. You just need to feed in the right formula for level calculation and it works. See above, I used the basic level progression you were interested in (i.e. the progression table in D&D 3e) and you should now see the correct values.

Edited November 17, 2013 by jethro

[Kaczor]

What is "mage stuff"? Cast an invisibility spell? Hey, you're sneaking with Mage Stuff. Shoot a fireball? You're fighting with Mage Stuff. You brewed us up something? Awesome, so did the barbarian. Y'all should compare notes. Want to reward a class for doing "class stuff"? That's already mechanically implemented. It's why rogues have a naturally high Sneak and fighters have a naturally high Deflection. So they're good at doing Their Stuff.

What is the point of different classes in the first place, if You want to play sneaking wizards and spell casting barbarians? And still - the fighter who increased his defection bonus by brewing potions sounds wrong to me.

 

Like I said, if you badly want to implement some variation in level timing, throw a small XP lottery in to the every quest to vary the rewards slightly. Or steal a page from a JRPG and give the player bonus EXP to distribute as they see fit. Or... anything that doesn't involve some silly "Wait, am I playing to type?" minigame.

If You want to use such rhetoric in this discussion, I feel obliged to say that anything is better than some silly "XP lottery" minigame. Did I win?

[Tamerlane]

 

What is "mage stuff"? Cast an invisibility spell? Hey, you're sneaking with Mage Stuff. Shoot a fireball? You're fighting with Mage Stuff. You brewed us up something? Awesome, so did the barbarian. Y'all should compare notes. Want to reward a class for doing "class stuff"? That's already mechanically implemented. It's why rogues have a naturally high Sneak and fighters have a naturally high Deflection. So they're good at doing Their Stuff.

What is the point of different classes in the first place, if You want to play sneaking wizards and spell casting barbarians? And still - the fighter who increased his defection bonus by brewing potions sounds wrong to me.

The point of a wizard is to cast spells. The point of casting spells is to light **** on fire. The point of lighting **** on fire is not to get "lighting **** on fire" EXP. A fighter takes hits because she's good at taking hits, not to win an EXP minigame.

 

Anyway, I already elaborated on why I feel "play to type" is a poor way of varying level up timing.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Tamerlane

[neo6874]

 

I read the formula x(n) is applied to the "NEXT_LVL_XP" column (i.e. x(n) = XP_BASE * CUR_LVL)  -- so the fighter progresses exactly as in D&D 3e rules ... whereas the rogue needs an additional 333 XP/ level, and the wizard needs an additional 666 XP/level.

No, as I said n is the number of the level not some xp value. x(17) should have been 136000 in your system. The formula that does that is x(n) = (n-1)*n*500. Try it, x(1) is 0, x(2) is 1000 and x(17) is 136000.

If you insert that into my formula, you get:

 

x(n,p,c)= (n-1)*n*500 + p * 1/c * (n*(n+1)*500-(n-1)*n*500)

 

or after simplification:

 

x(n,p,c)= (n-1+2*p/c) * n * 500

 

with

x= exp points you need in total

n= level

c= number of classes

p= your class, from 0..(c-1)

 

So a fighter at level 17 with 5 classes would need x(17,0,5)= (17-1+2*0/5)*17*500 = 136000 xp. Seems correct

 

A rogue with p=1 would need x(17,1,5)= (17-1+2*1/5)*17*500 = 139400 xp , the mage x(17,2,5)= (17-1+2*2/5)*17*500 = 142800 xp.

 

Our fifth and last class would have x(17,4,5)= 149600 xp.

 

And the fighter at level 18 would need x(18,0,5)= (18-1+2*0/5)*18*500) = 153000 xp, *after* any other class reached level 17.

 

 

Edit 2 -- actually, can you throw in a table with your proposed level progression  up to L20 (just for a fighter is fine) so that I can actually see what you're proposing rather than just guessing at it?

The thing is, my function doesn't care what level progression is wanted. You just need to feed in the right formula for level calculation and it works. See above, I used the basic level progression you were interested in (i.e. the progression table in D&D 3e) and you should now see the correct values.

 

 

 

 

a wizard at L17, using your math (with 3 classes, so can compare directly to my table)

x(17) = (17-1+2*2/3) * 17 * 500

 

x(17) = (17-1+2/3) * 17 * 500

x(17) = (16+2/3) * 17 * 500

x(17) = (48/3 + 2/3) * 17 * 500

x(17) = (50/3) * 17 * 500

x(17) = 141,666

 

So, I'm off by ~5k in my orginal tables (not too bad for guessing at it )

 

Have re-checked your maths as written, and came up with the following:

 

Long maths:

 

 

	
Level	FTR	RGE	WIZ
1	0	333	666
2	1000	1666	2333
3	3000	4000	5000
4	6000	7333	8666
5	10000	11666	13333
6	15000	17000	19000
7	21000	23333	25666
8	28000	30666	33333
9	36000	39000	42000
10	45000	48333	51666
11	55000	58666	62333
12	66000	70000	74000
13	78000	82333	86666
14	91000	95666	100333
15	105000	110000	115000
16	120000	125333	130666
17	136000	141666	147333
18	153000	159000	165000
19	171000	177333	183666
20	190000	196666	203333
21	210000	217000	224000
22	231000	238333	245666
23	253000	260666	268333
24	276000	284000	292000
25	300000	308333	316666
26	325000	333666	342333
27	351000	360000	369000
28	378000	387333	396666
29	406000	415666	425333
30	435000	445000	455000
31	465000	475333	485666
32	496000	506666	517333
33	528000	539000	550000
34	561000	572333	583666
35	595000	606666	618333
36	630000	642000	654000
37	666000	678333	690666
38	703000	715666	728333
39	741000	754000	767000
40	780000	793333	806666

 

 

 

Shortened:

 

 

	
Level	FTR	RGE	WIZ
1	0	333	666
2	1000	1666	2333
3	3000	4000	5000
4	6000	7333	8666
5	10000	11666	13333
6	15000	17000	19000
7	21000	23333	25666
8	28000	30666	33333
9	36000	39000	42000
10	45000	48333	51666
11	55000	58666	62333
12	66000	70000	74000
13	78000	82333	86666
14	91000	95666	100333
15	105000	110000	115000
16	120000	125333	130666
17	136000	141666	147333
18	153000	159000	165000
19	171000	177333	183666
20	190000	196666	203333
21	210000	217000	224000
22	231000	238333	245666
23	253000	260666	268333
24	276000	284000	292000
25	300000	308333	316666
26	325000	333666	342333
27	351000	360000	369000
28	378000	387333	396666
29	406000	415666	425333
30	435000	445000	455000
31	465000	475333	485666
32	496000	506666	517333
33	528000	539000	550000
34	561000	572333	583666
35	595000	606666	618333
36	630000	642000	654000
37	666000	678333	690666
38	703000	715666	728333
39	741000	754000	767000
40	780000	793333	806666

 

 

Well, your math works, but this part is wrong "(n-1+2*p/c)" specifically in that it's doubling the difference (so RGE needs +666 and wiz needs +1333 per level).  Took it out, and then hard-coded L1 to '0' XP and the table works out cleanly.

 

 

 

 
Level	FTR	RGE	WIZ
1	0	0	0
2	1000	1333	1666
3	3000	3500	4000
4	6000	6666	7333
5	10000	10833	11666
6	15000	16000	17000
7	21000	22166	23333
8	28000	29333	30666
9	36000	37500	39000
10	45000	46666	48333
11	55000	56833	58666
12	66000	68000	70000
13	78000	80166	82333
14	91000	93333	95666
15	105000	107500	110000
16	120000	122666	125333
17	136000	138833	141666
18	153000	156000	159000
19	171000	174166	177333
20	190000	193333	196666
21	210000	213500	217000
22	231000	234666	238333
23	253000	256833	260666
24	276000	280000	284000
25	300000	304166	308333
26	325000	329333	333666
27	351000	355500	360000
28	378000	382666	387333
29	406000	410833	415666
30	435000	440000	445000
31	465000	470166	475333
32	496000	501333	506666
33	528000	533500	539000
34	561000	566666	572333
35	595000	600833	606666
36	630000	636000	642000
37	666000	672166	678333
38	703000	709333	715666
39	741000	747500	754000
40	780000	786666	793333

 

Edited November 18, 2013 by neo6874

[neo6874]

 

 

Everyone levelling up at the same time is a minor irritant. Fussing around to make sure I'm doing just the right things to get just the right EXP rewards for just the right classes sounds annoying as hell. Honestly, if it's that big an issue, I'd rather just see one random party member take -5% EXP and another take +5% EXP each time you gain experience. No punishing mages for trying to sneak and stuff.

In early game stages leveling up whole party may be game-changing (see ICWD series). It may or may not be of some concern in P:E. Fussing around to maximize XP will be annoying and stupid, no matter how it will be implemented. It is not H'n'S game, where XP is the only indicator of one's progression. And it is not about punishing mages for trying to sneak, but about rewarding them for doing "mage stuff".

 

What is "mage stuff"? Cast an invisibility spell? Hey, you're sneaking with Mage Stuff. Shoot a fireball? You're fighting with Mage Stuff. You brewed us up something? Awesome, so did the barbarian. Y'all should compare notes. Want to reward a class for doing "class stuff"? That's already mechanically implemented. It's why rogues have a naturally high Sneak and fighters have a naturally high Deflection. So they're good at doing Their Stuff.

 

I think the idea is that there are only certain places where you would get this kind of "class stuff" XP.

 

The scene : outside the BBEG's keep

The task : get inside

The party: Fighter (Hum), Rogue (Hlf), Cleric (Dwf), Wizard (Elf), Ranger (Hf-Elf), Druid (Hum)

 

(Flavor Text)

After another half-day's travel, you find yourselves on a small ridge overlooking Crag Keep. In the distance, you can see the drawbridge is lowered, and only the inner portcullis has been closed. There is a lone guard at the gates, but you can see the flickering of a dying fire coming from some nearby arrow-slits -- it must be the guardhouse.

 

In the failing light, you can just make out a small wooded grove just inside the walls to the east of the gates, and stables to the west.

 

 

Possible solutions:

 

Rogue -> backstab the guard, steal the keys to get in

Wizard -> (assuming familiar can cast spells) Cat familiar wanders to the guard, sleep spell on him

Druid -> makes the trees in that grove grow over the wall and let you in (or, transmute rock to mud, etc)

Ranger (or druid) -> spook the horses in the stables

 

 

 

Another scene:

You've made it to the foot of BBEG's fortress, where you confront him in the cistern. If he's successfulat poisoning the water here, it will poison the water supply for every village at the base of this mountain

 

Solutions:

 

Ftr -> break the chains holding the cover up, so BBEG can't pour in the poison

Ranger/Druix/Wizard/Cleric - Hold Person/entangle/etc

 

 

 

Other things may require a specific class to get the XP bonus, but can still be circumvented in other means (locks -> XP is to a rogue, but a ftr can bash it in, wizard casts knock, etc).

[Ulquiorra]

let's make i simple, let's everyone be at max level from the start so no level ups

[neo6874]

hehehe, suppose that's also another solution

[danjal]

In most cases I prefer characters leveling up as they are used.
Someone did a conversation roll (intimidate/persuade etc) - they get a bonus, picked a lock? Bonus, killed something - bonus.

Course when you're just getting XP from quests this could get harder, unless you give specific bonusses to the partymember who completed objective X from a quest.

I dislike the "whole party levels up at once" deal, it happens in Dragon Age 2 for example, and what happens is that I end up switching my team around every once in a while just to level these guys up and stick them back on the shelve again cause I prefer not using them =P
If that means that I'll have a few weaker guys cause I didn't use them - well if I needed them I'd use them more, else its all on me.

In which case I'd be thinking about an XCOM - enemy unknown or Fire Emblem type deal, where if you leave a bunch of guys low level and you need them later on, well thats kinda your own fault.

[IRMA]

i am full on for different level tables. simply, its much more fun to have it spread so that you dont have to so wait long for all to level up at once, but you have the right portion of that fun every once in a while. remember the joy of hearing level up sound and hoping for it happening to my fave chars in party:) gaming is all about fun, nothing else

[Silverfox]

Theoretically* I agree that individuals should level based on their own acts and accomplishments. However, and this is a big however, wouldn't flat leveling (where everybody levels at the same time) be far more preferable in terms of gameplay?

 

For instance: you have, say, 10 NPCs that you pick from to form your 5 toon party. You like toons A, B, C & G so you consistently pick them. After a certain point, you no longer have a choice and you have to keep picking them, because the other toons weren't doing anything and now they are 2-3 levels lower than your character. Or are limited to new NPCs that you get.

 

I mean, doesn't gameplay, balancing and fun always trump all else?

 

In theory there is no difference between theory and reality, in reality there is.

[jethro]

Theoretically* I agree that individuals should level based on their own acts and accomplishments. However, and this is a big however, wouldn't flat leveling (where everybody levels at the same time) be far more preferable in terms of gameplay?

 

You are ignoring a third possibility: That individuals are not leved based on their own acts but still don't level at the same time. For example this would be the case if all your toons get equal xp but they start from a different level or they gain a level at different xp values.

[Silverfox]

 

Theoretically* I agree that individuals should level based on their own acts and accomplishments. However, and this is a big however, wouldn't flat leveling (where everybody levels at the same time) be far more preferable in terms of gameplay?

 

You are ignoring a third possibility: That individuals are not leved based on their own acts but still don't level at the same time. For example this would be the case if all your toons get equal xp but they start from a different level or they gain a level at different xp values.

 

True.

 

If you have a party that you can't modify the roster, then having toons level at different times would be okay as I would assume that the Devs have balanced the game around this.

 

If, like NWN2, you have a selection of toons to take each time you leave the inn, in that case it would be important to have flat leveling.

One thing I've learned from reading the WoW forums, is that players will most likely choose the path leading to the