Warhammer Examples of +XP gained being done well as a mechanic?

[Diggfinger]

Might and Magic 6 learning skill

so satisfying to use at each and every level

Spoiler

 

[Not.AI]

Divinity 2 Dragon Knight Saga also had speedup of gaining XP at cost of a skill point. But you gained less XP proportional to the difference between your character's level and the monster's level.

Should a smart person actually get XP faster?

In other words, Tyson had a level 0 perk "Natural born boxer: gives +50% exp when learning boxing and +25% when learning melee combat skills".

Right, conditionally based on their other character attributes. It has to be asymmetric. Activity category specific.

When it's gain all across the board, being that most games also have some level scaling or else reduce XP dramatically when overleveled (DKS) it's totally pointless.

The one issue is that any faster gain of XP breaks most current games. Because most current games are not good enough. They don't have enough content. The rate of XP gain is just used a parameter for pacing movement through the game.

Grind compensates for lack of content in games that happen to have tolerable core loops. (Not a valid option in games with boring core loops.)

We basically need overall better games, with more and deeper content.

 

[PapaPetro]

How would you even describe real life experience gain as a mechanic?

 

[Average Manatee]

The Leadership and Wisdom stats in Jagged Alliance 2, which complement each other. The higher your Leadership stat, the better you are at training militia and other mercs. The higher your Wisdom stat, the quicker you learn: your stats increase faster, whether through regular gameplay or when being taught by other mercs. It's probably the most interesting implementation of this trope there is.

I feel like this is the best implementation, and for two specific reasons:

1. Stats in JA2 don't specify effects. Wisdom doesn't just say "+30% XP gain rate", so unless you actually delve into the code you don't know exactly how strong it is.
2. Characters in JA2 are very much a "take it or leave it" affair. There's no character creation (outside of for 1 IMP) where a player has to judge whether +20 wisdom is better than +20 marksmanship.

These combine to make the situation much more vague and up to player intuition than most games. You can't simply calculate that wisdom is a good or bad stat in the way you could something like the 'Here and Now' perk from Fallout. You're not weighing a specific tradeoff, just deciding based on the entire merc's lineup whether you want them or not.

 

[Daemongar]

I can't say I've played any CRPGs that do this. In Betrayal at Krondor, skills are advanced through usage. The player can select skills to emphasize, which will increase their relative rate of improvement. The fewer emphasized, the greater that bonus is. I think the bonus for only one skill selected is +50%.

It always kind of surprised me that that system really wasn't used anywhere else, even though that was a highly regarded game and the whole system worked pretty well. Then again, maybe it could be said that it was just an extension of Dungeon Master or such. Advancement based on use, with the ability to customize.

But I wouldn't call that an XP system. There weren't even levels!

Wasteland was pretty good - xps and levels to get points to raise abilities which could also be raised through use.
Deus Ex/Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines - I like this system as well as you can carve out your character as you progress.

Overall, I don't have a problem with XP type systems, as they imply in the basest manner a players learning over time.

 

[Daemongar]

Intelligence in Fallout 4 gives +XP (because they removed skill points), and it's utterly inconsequential. Because each level requires more XP than the last, even something like 20% bonus XP might only net the player a couple levels over the course of the entire game. You have to use ridiculous numbers for it to feel like the investment is worth anything.

Intelligence for bonus SP feels more important in Age of Decadence and Dungeon Rats, perhaps just because you're always under the gun and looking to eke out a little edge.

Here's a fun question:
Should a smart person actually get XP faster?

If you took a random PhD student, would he have become a top-tier boxer faster than Mike Tyson did?

You are missing the point of stats. In initial rpgs, you selected your char off the stats you rolled. Mike Tyson is a victim of his natural stats - no player with a 3 str could ever become Tyson. All the XPs in the world woundn't make a char with bad stats Mike Tyson.

 

[Desiderius]

Tyson probably a bad example. Definitely not an idiot, and developed* unique training techniques (accelerated EXP gain?) to develop his strength in the places where it counted most.

* - benefited from all-time great trainer, like Might & Magic?

 

[Norfleet]

1. Stats in JA2 don't specify effects. Wisdom doesn't just say "+30% XP gain rate", so unless you actually delve into the code you don't know exactly how strong it is.

This isn't actually a good thing, this is just tedious and annoying since now I have to break out my disassembly tools or consult a guide just to figure out how to play your game. A game that only relies on the player having no idea how to play to pretend to be good isn't actually good...although JA2 doesn't actually depend on this, which is why knowing exactly how it works doesn't "ruin" the game.

2. Characters in JA2 are very much a "take it or leave it" affair. There's no character creation (outside of for 1 IMP) where a player has to judge whether +20 wisdom is better than +20 marksmanship.

And that's why it ultimately doesn't matter. Plus, it's not like there's a shortage of cows to punch.

And this is, of course, the core weakness of "learn by doing" skillsystems instead of level-up systems. That players will resort to grinding skill gains in this way. And you can't even say this is wrong, because THIS ACTUALLY WORKS IN REAL LIFE. Making recruits run around with packs full of weights to get stronger is exactly how it is done in the Army.

The result is that you now need to add an unpopular time-pressure mechanic in an attempt to prevent the player from turning it into Bootcamp Simulator. Or fall back to an XP gain system...which results in players grinding respawning mobs instead to level up their <UNRELATED TO MURDERING> skill.

 

[zapotec]

Tyson probably a bad example. Definitely not an idiot, and developed* unique training techniques (accelerated EXP gain?) to develop his strength in the places where it counted most.

* - benefited from all-time great trainer, like Might & Magic?

Well, he offered money for fighting a gorilla...

 

[anvi]

EverQuest was known as EverCrack back in the day because it was so addictive to play, and I think the XP from killing enemies was one of the biggest parts of that. The game just naturally rewards you each time you get a new level, which seems like good design if you do it right. The devs had to make new spells every 4 levels, but each individual level was a big improvement just because of how it played for you vs whatever you are fighting. Each level your character got slightly better at defense, offense, etc. And just being a level higher than the enemies you are usually fighting makes a big difference.

I think what made it so addictive though was how long it took to get a new level. At first it's easy but going from 32 to 33 could take some people several days... It was off the charts long compared to todays games. And yet when I play todays games which throw levels at you every 2 minutes, it just cheapens the whole thing and makes it seem a lot less meaningful.

 

[anvi]

EverQuest was known as EverCrack back in the day because it was so addictive to play, and I think the XP from killing enemies was one of the biggest parts of that. The game just naturally rewards you each time you get a new level, which seems like good design if you do it right. The devs had to make new spells every 4 levels, but each individual level was a big improvement just because of how it played for you vs whatever you are fighting. Each level your character got slightly better at defense, offense, etc. And just being a level higher than the enemies you are usually fighting makes a big difference.

I think what made it so addictive though was how long it took to get a new level. At first it's easy but going from 32 to 33 could take some people several days... It was off the charts long compared to todays games. And yet when I play todays games which throw levels at you every 2 minutes, it just cheapens the whole thing and makes it seem a lot less meaningful.

I have a few problems with it though which I will try to remember.

Firstly the levels make such a big difference that it can make content too easy if people just outlevel it. Like there's a perfectly tuned dungeon for levels 8-14 that ends with a king in a castle and an assassin etc.. Super popular to all players who go there for those levels. But if you don't find that place until level 20 then you can kill the whole dungeon by yourself easily. So skilled players play to challenge themselves, and bitch ass mfers just kill hoards of easy enemies to outlevel everything in the game. It ruins the game for themselves but also other players. Yet when it takes that long you can't really blame them.

I think there's ways to make it better but it takes smart experienced devs which is rare.

Also the long grindy levels was too much for a lot of people so with the spiritual sequel (Vanguard) they did a much better job. It was the same setup but each level you get about 10 attribute points to spend on your character, spread through the level. So it was more like a constant reward without becoming op. For EQ they added Alternative Advancements which is much more advanced because it has lots of interesting new abilities. But it's less elegant than VG because it was an addon later. A mix of both would be nice...

Also it needs to be balanced properly so the problem above is hopefully removed. Like if all mobs are equally difficult then there would be no easier grind spots. EQ was so big they had some problems with that.

 

[anvi]

I remember when Elder Scrolls Online went from being level based like EQ, to having the entire world scale to you. It's a lot of fun, the game is so accomodating.. You can just head in any direction and have a nice time... But if I had to choose between that and the old EQ way, I would still much prefer the old way. Because you would bump into enemies that are 30 levels higher than you and could kill you in 1 hit, and you could do the same to lower level stuff. But that gave everything a sense of scale and depth. If everything scales to you... then there's never going to be a challenge.

If I got to make a game I would make everything scale first, but then apply different sets of rules to different types of enemies. Vanguard kind of did this, you had the level of enemies vs you, but the enemies also had 'dots' around them. 6 dots meant raid mob, 5 dots needed a group, 4 dots small group, 3 dots soloable, 2 dots easy solo, 1 dots was like wildlife. Everyone hated it lol, it confused people having to understand levels and dots. But I liked it... So if I made a game I would make it like that but I'd have the dots be done in a different way. Maybe not shown to the player at all.

 

[PapaPetro]

EverQuest was known as EverCrack back in the day because it was so addictive to play, and I think the XP from killing enemies was one of the biggest parts of that. The game just naturally rewards you each time you get a new level, which seems like good design if you do it right. The devs had to make new spells every 4 levels, but each individual level was a big improvement just because of how it played for you vs whatever you are fighting. Each level your character got slightly better at defense, offense, etc. And just being a level higher than the enemies you are usually fighting makes a big difference.

I think what made it so addictive though was how long it took to get a new level. At first it's easy but going from 32 to 33 could take some people several days... It was off the charts long compared to todays games. And yet when I play todays games which throw levels at you every 2 minutes, it just cheapens the whole thing and makes it seem a lot less meaningful.

It encouraged me to do swarm kiting due to the time-to-ding.
I played MUDs before EQ, primarily Gemstone 3 on AOL, and the XP requirements for that were even worse than EQ at its prime(val). It took years of grinding just to get to level 20 and be titled a Lord/Lady, but it was a big dick deal.

 

[anvi]

Wow that's pretty epic! I loved early EQ like that, I could have played it for years. But I think the expansions kind of screwed things up, I stopped caring about building a character and just started playing it for other reasons and on other servers. I always figured they would make a tidier sequel someday. Little did I know..

 

[Norfleet]

EverQuest was known as EverCrack back in the day because it was so addictive to play

It also wouldn't succeed on those premises today because the modern gamer is no longer so easily attracted to bashing pinatas for barely anything when they could be playing some other game that pays out better for their efforts. The truth of the matter is that grinding mobs that pay only tiny amounts of XP was only interesting back when people had no other options to choose from. Also, because you paid for an entire month of this shit so you're gonna USE the entire month of this shit. And while I often question how just how much the modern gamer is willing to tolerate a much slower playflow, like whether a modern gamer is willing to spend hours watching Mr. Radar until a contact appears to spring into action against, even with the companionship of Mr. Coffee to pass the time, somehow, I don't think repetitive mob-grinding for very little XP and not a whole lot else is gonna be making a comeback. Even Diabloesques at least distract players from the tedium with showers of blood, gore, and loot.

 

[deuxhero]

Fire Emblem occasionally has a skill called Paragon that doubles experience gain. This works since the games have limited XP to obtain, and its treated as that unit's defining feature or (when given by an item) a really valuable item you choose the recipient of really carefully. Thus Paragon itself is a resource to be used (or tossed because of its steep opportunity cost). Do you use a unit that's nothing special about except for the fact that they grow super fast (potentially making the rest of your team stronger as more XP can be spread among everyone else)? Do you give double XP to a low level unit and blow further resources to feed them XP, or do you give it to a mid-power unit to make them even better (XP growth scales with level, so giving it to a powerful unit that outlevels everyone else is generally a waste)?

A related subject might be games where different classes have different XP growths. The Elder Scrolls: Arena got very close to making this work by making spells scale with level, so raw level is actually useful and Mage, the magic using class with the fastest level up, gains something in return for its narrow abilities (it can only cast magic, not fight etc.). Unfortunately technical problems mean levels are capped when they weren't supposed to be, and the XP curve scaling is so steep everyone is going to hit a soft level cap of roughly the same level by end-game anyways no matter how fast their class grows.

Edit: Daggerfall kinda continues this by giving "weaker" classes faster growth. Problem is, again, that raising things to really high levels takes absurd amounts of XP no mater how fast one's growth is set, early levels are so fast (and level scaling means this actually makes things harder for weaker classes), the soft cap is low enough and harsh enough it makes no difference in end-game, and training (which doesn't care about your growth rates) takes care of really low to mid level skills better than actually learning through use. Skyrim has a really small version of XP multiplier if you slept in an owned/rented bed (doubled again if your spouse is with you) recently, but the trivalness of abusing it (it makes tricks to abuse the learning by doing system even better while doing little to incentive actually going out and using your skills) vs. the actual gain of encouraging the player to sleep in a bed every so often.

 

[anvi]

EverQuest was known as EverCrack back in the day because it was so addictive to play

It also wouldn't succeed on those premises today because the modern gamer is no longer so easily attracted to bashing pinatas for barely anything when they could be playing some other game that pays out better for their efforts. The truth of the matter is that grinding mobs that pay only tiny amounts of XP was only interesting back when people had no other options to choose from. Also, because you paid for an entire month of this shit so you're gonna USE the entire month of this shit. And while I often question how just how much the modern gamer is willing to tolerate a much slower playflow, like whether a modern gamer is willing to spend hours watching Mr. Radar until a contact appears to spring into action against, even with the companionship of Mr. Coffee to pass the time, somehow, I don't think repetitive mob-grinding for very little XP and not a whole lot else is gonna be making a comeback. Even Diabloesques at least distract players from the tedium with showers of blood, gore, and loot.

I mostly disagree, I am sure many of the players were happier in WoW or whatever once it came along, but EQ never would have been popular at all if it was just bashing loot pinatas and grind. It had so much more going for it I don't even know where to begin.