Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
I HAD AN EXPERIENCE AND IT WORTHED 1EXP!
Posts
Pages:
1
Treason89
360
Treason89
View playlists
CloseJust wondering... How do you feel about EXP and the way games manage it? Go ahead and give your oppinion. Would you prefer games with no experience, with 1 level up each battle or with 5 randomic different kind of experience curves that tend towards infinite and become useless after lvl 50 like in Pokemon games?
Most RPG use experience as functions like, linear (10, 20, 30, 40... the most common one) exponential (10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 26... early growth but latter it takes aeons to level up) or capped (10, 80, 140, 190, 220... hard to evolve first, but latter gets easier).
Other games like Chrono Cross have no experience or levels but Star power ups.
What about a game where the equipments are the level ups (so probably money = exp). Or games where every battle only gives 1 exp, or every battle means a level up (so exp = number of battles)? Or what about a penalty for dying (or fainitng or whatever) that reduces the exp (or level) of the character?
I know many of you have lots of experience so, what have you found that you like or annoys you about exp?
Most RPG use experience as functions like, linear (10, 20, 30, 40... the most common one) exponential (10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 26... early growth but latter it takes aeons to level up) or capped (10, 80, 140, 190, 220... hard to evolve first, but latter gets easier).
Other games like Chrono Cross have no experience or levels but Star power ups.
What about a game where the equipments are the level ups (so probably money = exp). Or games where every battle only gives 1 exp, or every battle means a level up (so exp = number of battles)? Or what about a penalty for dying (or fainitng or whatever) that reduces the exp (or level) of the character?
I know many of you have lots of experience so, what have you found that you like or annoys you about exp?
amerk
2539
Maybe even:
Every battle nets you stat points that can be used towards increasing stats of the player's choice.
If each monster dropped 1 stat point a piece, and the typical fight had 3 enemies, and you were a 4-person team, and you had 6 (HP, MP, Str, Def, Agi, Int), you'd be looking at around 8 battles to fully level up each player's stats 1 point.
Adjustments can be made to lower the stat grind by allowing enemies (or even boss fights) to drop more points, side quests to net stat points faster, or even options of purchasing them in store.
But at least this way, the player can choose to apply the points to whichever stats they want.
Every battle nets you stat points that can be used towards increasing stats of the player's choice.
If each monster dropped 1 stat point a piece, and the typical fight had 3 enemies, and you were a 4-person team, and you had 6 (HP, MP, Str, Def, Agi, Int), you'd be looking at around 8 battles to fully level up each player's stats 1 point.
Adjustments can be made to lower the stat grind by allowing enemies (or even boss fights) to drop more points, side quests to net stat points faster, or even options of purchasing them in store.
But at least this way, the player can choose to apply the points to whichever stats they want.
Avee
5794
I can't think of any experience systems that I find annoying. What does bother me is when the next challenge can only be solved by leveling up/grinding and Exp gains are so small that it takes an eternity to power up. The older Phantasy Stars come to mind.
It's great to twist conventions and make up original systems. Experiment.
For instance, imagine a realistic game where Exp leads to stat increases but can only be gained through cycles of repeated effort and proper rest. Go lift weights or run around and lose HP in the process, until you reach 20% HP and need to rest for a couple of days to reap the benefits. If you fall under 20% or don't rest enough, you won't get the stat bonus.
And when you defeat an enemy without having lost any HP or having suffered from any ailments, you don't gain any Exp. You only gain the knowledge of having found out the best strategy to use against that enemy.
Don't know if that would be any fun to play, but it sure could be fun to make.
It's great to twist conventions and make up original systems. Experiment.
For instance, imagine a realistic game where Exp leads to stat increases but can only be gained through cycles of repeated effort and proper rest. Go lift weights or run around and lose HP in the process, until you reach 20% HP and need to rest for a couple of days to reap the benefits. If you fall under 20% or don't rest enough, you won't get the stat bonus.
And when you defeat an enemy without having lost any HP or having suffered from any ailments, you don't gain any Exp. You only gain the knowledge of having found out the best strategy to use against that enemy.
Don't know if that would be any fun to play, but it sure could be fun to make.
Jalex
979
(I should probably clarify that I play RPGs significantly less often than non-RPGs)
I actually don't particularly like the traditional EXP-and-leveling system usually found in RPGs. As a player, it doesn't feel to me like a meaningful reward to gain a level after defeating n enemies which I would've fought anyway; it feels too arbitrary, and often the stat gains feel negligible in the next battle. As a designer, it's harder to determine how the strong the player character is, which complicates the process of balancing encounters.
That said, I'm more fond of systems where you allocate points to different areas, similar to what amerk described. At least then I'm in control of my stat growth, which is a little more satisfying.
Finally, I think an ideal system would be one with only money and equipment, but not traditional levels. Money is usually more versatile than EXP; you can spend it on healing items, or new equipment, or for healing at the inn, so I almost always find it more useful than EXP (not to mention that it lets me control how I progress). I also like progression via equipment, because it (usually) provides enough of a gain that I can see it immediately.
I actually don't particularly like the traditional EXP-and-leveling system usually found in RPGs. As a player, it doesn't feel to me like a meaningful reward to gain a level after defeating n enemies which I would've fought anyway; it feels too arbitrary, and often the stat gains feel negligible in the next battle. As a designer, it's harder to determine how the strong the player character is, which complicates the process of balancing encounters.
That said, I'm more fond of systems where you allocate points to different areas, similar to what amerk described. At least then I'm in control of my stat growth, which is a little more satisfying.
Finally, I think an ideal system would be one with only money and equipment, but not traditional levels. Money is usually more versatile than EXP; you can spend it on healing items, or new equipment, or for healing at the inn, so I almost always find it more useful than EXP (not to mention that it lets me control how I progress). I also like progression via equipment, because it (usually) provides enough of a gain that I can see it immediately.
TheNecromancer
3160
author=Avee
And when you defeat an enemy without having lost any HP or having suffered from any ailments, you don't gain any Exp. You only gain the knowledge of having found out the best strategy to use against that enemy.
Don't know if that would be any fun to play, but it sure could be fun to make.
If it's implemented like FF2, then probably not.
I've played a few titles where experience rewards scale according to enemy level verses character level. Borderlands is pretty transparent about it, but Suikoden has it as well. The general response to gaining 1 XP in either of these games is that you're not really doing anything that is worth your time. You're slightly better off with gaining 1 XP in the Suikoden series (as it always takes 1000 XP to level), but it's still a painful haul.
On the other side of the spectrum, I've played a tactical game (more specifically, the SNES game, Monstania) where characters don't have an experience field, but level up after each fight they participate in. Though, I forget how much power characters get with each leveland it was irrelevant because I was hacking stats anyway.
Then, there are my own games. Darigaaz, the first encounter has been known to jump players four levels. I guess I could just start characters off at level 5 to begin with, but, I dunno. I'd like to think that it's more fun for players to be able to see that jump, even if it's only once per playthrough.
On the other side of the spectrum, I've played a tactical game (more specifically, the SNES game, Monstania) where characters don't have an experience field, but level up after each fight they participate in. Though, I forget how much power characters get with each level
Then, there are my own games. Darigaaz, the first encounter has been known to jump players four levels. I guess I could just start characters off at level 5 to begin with, but, I dunno. I'd like to think that it's more fun for players to be able to see that jump, even if it's only once per playthrough.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=Link_2112author=AveeIf it's implemented like FF2, then probably not.
And when you defeat an enemy without having lost any HP or having suffered from any ailments, you don't gain any Exp. You only gain the knowledge of having found out the best strategy to use against that enemy.
Don't know if that would be any fun to play, but it sure could be fun to make.
The idea of being rewarded for playing poorly and punished for playing well is pretty stupid. It's stupid in theory, and it's typically just as stupid in practice. It encourages people to play worse on purpose.
I certainly understand the desire to not give more power to players who don't need it any more, but there are better ways to do it. Diminishing returns based on how much power you've already gotten, instead of based on how well you perform.
Avee
5794
author=LockeZ
...Diminishing returns based on how much power you've already gotten, instead of based on how well you perform.
True. I suppose that an exponential exp curve (fast early, slow late) fits better than either static growth or lv caps in an Exp system intended to be realistic.
And it would probably make more sense to reward performance during skill-based challenges rather than strategy-based gameplay. Optimal strategy use could always lead to other kinds of rewards, not only Exp.
Why gain experience points from battle? Why not gain experience points from solving puzzles? Solve the puzzles and you will do well in battle.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
A good battle is a puzzle.
My biggest problem with experience points is their tendency to make the game too easy unless you skip large swaths of the game. I'm fine with being able to gain power - I really enjoy that! - but I don't want to gain so much power that the game has no challenge any more. The more nonlinear an RPG is, the more this is a problem. You do a sidequest, or do things in a different order, and stuff that was the right difficulty before becomes way too easy to be fun. All the strategy just vanishes and the game turns into button mashing.
Level-scaling enemies are usually even worse than no solution, though. In 99% of systems, that's just effectively making it so I get *weaker* the more stuff I do. That's not fun either, because it still makes me want to skip large chunks of the game, just for the opposite reason. And then on top of that it removes one of the most enjoyable and central parts of RPG gameplay, which is becoming stronger.
I would rather have a linear game than either of those issues. Experience points and level ups are really not designed at all for nonlinear games, and the idea of making open-ended RPGs is inherently flawed. You can work around those flaws, and even make a fantastic game by working around those flaws, but you're always going to be working against the RPG systems instead of with them.
My biggest problem with experience points is their tendency to make the game too easy unless you skip large swaths of the game. I'm fine with being able to gain power - I really enjoy that! - but I don't want to gain so much power that the game has no challenge any more. The more nonlinear an RPG is, the more this is a problem. You do a sidequest, or do things in a different order, and stuff that was the right difficulty before becomes way too easy to be fun. All the strategy just vanishes and the game turns into button mashing.
Level-scaling enemies are usually even worse than no solution, though. In 99% of systems, that's just effectively making it so I get *weaker* the more stuff I do. That's not fun either, because it still makes me want to skip large chunks of the game, just for the opposite reason. And then on top of that it removes one of the most enjoyable and central parts of RPG gameplay, which is becoming stronger.
I would rather have a linear game than either of those issues. Experience points and level ups are really not designed at all for nonlinear games, and the idea of making open-ended RPGs is inherently flawed. You can work around those flaws, and even make a fantastic game by working around those flaws, but you're always going to be working against the RPG systems instead of with them.
Pages:
1
