Please FIX the XP system!

[amnnor]

There will always be fanbois that will fight any fix to a flawed game mechanic (believing the game to be perfection) but really thats all thats being asked for, a fix for a flaw.

The most compelling arguement made against this fix is "well my characters xp is only a few hundred difference from each other, its not that bad." Thats not much of an arguement for the current XP system being correct as is. If anything it reinforces that it is flawed, but the flaw is minor and not too noticeable. Its still a flaw however, and one easily fixed by the next patch.

It's not a flaw, it was designed this way. You thinking it's a flaw doesn't make it one either. Why would you care if the XP is exactly the same for every member of the party if they all end up the same level? To be honest, I can't think of a game I've played that works the way you are suggesting it should. Most have even more restrictions on gaining it. Many of the games I've played have XP rewards based class, character level, etc. Some the total XP is different per member based on time in party.

[seebs]

There will always be fanbois that will fight any fix to a flawed game mechanic (believing the game to be perfection) but really thats all thats being asked for, a fix for a flaw.

The most compelling arguement made against this fix is "well my characters xp is only a few hundred difference from each other, its not that bad." Thats not much of an arguement for the current XP system being correct as is. If anything it reinforces that it is flawed, but the flaw is minor and not too noticeable. Its still a flaw however, and one easily fixed by the next patch.

It's not a flaw, it was designed this way. You thinking it's a flaw doesn't make it one either. Why would you care if the XP is exactly the same for every member of the party if they all end up the same level? To be honest, I can't think of a game I've played that works the way you are suggesting it should. Most have even more restrictions on gaining it. Many of the games I've played have XP rewards based class, character level, etc. Some the total XP is different per member based on time in party.

I've seen a ton of games that just distribute XP evenly among party members. Most famously, D&D and most of the games derived from it.

The weakness of this one is that you are fairly harshly penalized for having some characters hit every mob and others only hit some, or for having a character doing utility stuff. If my mage keeps light spells up, my mage has less energy for casting and thus gets less XP, despite contributing. Furthermore, fighters and rogues are harshly penalized for any fight involving multiple creatures at a time (like a 4-skeleton squad), because they get half XP unless they actually hit every single mob, and you can't even see which ones they've hit!

That it is more rewarding to move a mage around in slots and cast spells from every slot than to try to have the other party members participate makes me think the system is flawed.

[amnnor]

It's not a flaw, it was designed this way. You thinking it's a flaw doesn't make it one either. Why would you care if the XP is exactly the same for every member of the party if they all end up the same level? To be honest, I can't think of a game I've played that works the way you are suggesting it should. Most have even more restrictions on gaining it. Many of the games I've played have XP rewards based class, character level, etc. Some the total XP is different per member based on time in party.

I've seen a ton of games that just distribute XP evenly among party members. Most famously, D&D and most of the games derived from it.

The weakness of this one is that you are fairly harshly penalized for having some characters hit every mob and others only hit some, or for having a character doing utility stuff. If my mage keeps light spells up, my mage has less energy for casting and thus gets less XP, despite contributing. Furthermore, fighters and rogues are harshly penalized for any fight involving multiple creatures at a time (like a 4-skeleton squad), because they get half XP unless they actually hit every single mob, and you can't even see which ones they've hit!

That it is more rewarding to move a mage around in slots and cast spells from every slot than to try to have the other party members participate makes me think the system is flawed.[/quote]

I've only played D&D games on computer, and I'm pretty sure XP is not evenly distributed evenly. I could certainly be wrong, but I'm sure I remember party members in Baldur's Gate not evenly spliting XP earned. Then to top that off you had level requirements being different for classes and could wind up with a party of very different levels. Neverwinter Nights didn't really have a "party" but I remember rogues, wizards, and fighters getting varied XP rewards for killing things. I'm not an expert on D&D rules, but it never appeared to me in the games I played that everyone got an even cut of the XP. In newer games, I remember party members leveling at different times in both Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect.

If I understand D&D wrong, I'd like an explanation for the inconsistancies I've seen if anyone has one.

[Vichar]

I agree with the original poster. Give full experience to everyone please. I agree with almost all gameplay decisions but this one doesn't make much sense.

[Draken]

at least everyone gets experience, instead of "the killer gets the prize!" like some games i've seen... or even worse, 500 exp divided by 4, 125 exp for everyone... Sure, sometimes the mage is out of energy, or the minotaur fighter just misses every single hit in the combat, but they still get 250 exp, which, last time i checked is better than "the killer gets the prize" or 500/4.

what is REALLY missing is to grant Exp for solving puzzles and advancing in the dungeon, which i was surprised it was nowhere to be found!

[dbgager]

Seebs..You think everything about this game is flawed. So why in the heck don't you just go play another game since this one is so bad. I am sure you have lost the ears of the developers a long time ago.

[Kadaeux]

There will always be fanbois that will fight any fix to a flawed game mechanic (believing the game to be perfection) but really thats all thats being asked for, a fix for a flaw.


The most compelling arguement made against this fix is "well my characters xp is only a few hundred difference from each other, its not that bad." Thats not much of an arguement for the current XP system being correct as is. If anything it reinforces that it is flawed, but the flaw is minor and not too noticeable. Its still a flaw however, and one easily fixed by the next patch.

There's nothing flawed about it.

If someone doesn't contribute to the killing of a monster why should they get any experience for it? If you have four guys building a house and one spends all his time on a lounge chair drinking beer should he get paid the same as the other three?

I've seen a ton of games that just distribute XP evenly among party members. Most famously, D&D and most of the games derived from it.

I can see you have clearly never played Dungeons and Dragons or any game derived from it. D&D distributes XP evenly about as often as the government gives everyone a million dollars.

[dbgager]

There will always be fanbois that will fight any fix to a flawed game mechanic (believing the game to be perfection) but really thats all thats being asked for, a fix for a flaw.


The most compelling arguement made against this fix is "well my characters xp is only a few hundred difference from each other, its not that bad." Thats not much of an arguement for the current XP system being correct as is. If anything it reinforces that it is flawed, but the flaw is minor and not too noticeable. Its still a flaw however, and one easily fixed by the next patch.

There's nothing flawed about it.

If someone doesn't contribute to the killing of a monster why should they get any experience for it? If you have four guys building a house and one spends all his time on a lounge chair drinking beer should he get paid the same as the other three?

Or does he actually learn anything..Thats what experience is. All the systems used in this games make perfect sense.

[seebs]

There's nothing flawed about it.

Sure there is.

If someone doesn't contribute to the killing of a monster why should they get any experience for it? If you have four guys building a house and one spends all his time on a lounge chair drinking beer should he get paid the same as the other three?

This would totally be applicable if every way in which party members contributed yielded experience. Also if you got XP for contributing, rather than from being in the party slot that was occupied by the person who contributed when they did it.

Say you're fighting spiders, and one of your characters whips up a cure-poison potion while you're fighting. Not a contribution? Light spell. Not a contribution? Poison shield. Not a contribution?

There is a reason these four characters are played as a unified party.

More generally:

I just decided to start from the top and play such that everyone gets XP from every kill. Haven't gotten to the four-skeleton sets yet, and those worry me because it's really not possible to be sure that everyone is "contributing" to a given kill. You might end up with one character happening not to ever hit a particular skeleton, while getting lots of hits off on another.

And what I've found is: This way of playing is a lot more stressful, it's less focused on effective fighting.

So under your analogy, let's say that you have a construction company whose policy is that each person only gets half pay for a board unless they drove one of the nails. Carrying lumber doesn't count, bringing nails doesn't count, holding something in place doesn't count; you have to drive one of the nails. So everyone sits around taking turns driving nails into each board, which is horrendously inefficient, but is the only way they can get full pay.

Yeah, I'd say that's flawed. I should not be getting less XP for playing intelligently.

[dbgager]

There's nothing flawed about it.

Sure there is.

If someone doesn't contribute to the killing of a monster why should they get any experience for it? If you have four guys building a house and one spends all his time on a lounge chair drinking beer should he get paid the same as the other three?

This would totally be applicable if every way in which party members contributed yielded experience. Also if you got XP for contributing, rather than from being in the party slot that was occupied by the person who contributed when they did it.

Say you're fighting spiders, and one of your characters whips up a cure-poison potion while you're fighting. Not a contribution? Light spell. Not a contribution? Poison shield. Not a contribution?

There is a reason these four characters are played as a unified party.

More generally:

I just decided to start from the top and play such that everyone gets XP from every kill. Haven't gotten to the four-skeleton sets yet, and those worry me because it's really not possible to be sure that everyone is "contributing" to a given kill. You might end up with one character happening not to ever hit a particular skeleton, while getting lots of hits off on another.

And what I've found is: This way of playing is a lot more stressful, it's less focused on effective fighting.

So under your analogy, let's say that you have a construction company whose policy is that each person only gets half pay for a board unless they drove one of the nails. Carrying lumber doesn't count, bringing nails doesn't count, holding something in place doesn't count; you have to drive one of the nails. So everyone sits around taking turns driving nails into each board, which is horrendously inefficient, but is the only way they can get full pay.

Yeah, I'd say that's flawed. I should not be getting less XP for playing intelligently.

I bet Seebs has not even made it to the 3rd level yet...lol. He spends all his time testing the game.