WHAT ARE YOU WORKING ON NOW?

I think it does. When you get a bajillion experience it'd be nice to see it work towards more than just giving the bottom feeder one level to get him to catch up to the rest of the team quickly instead of having to slog through at least ten fights. To prevent the below-level multipliers from getting out of hand the available experience is recalculated after getting each level.

Example, assuming the experience needed per level grows at 50% per level and starts at 300.
EXP Curve:
2: 300
3: 450
4: 675
5: 1013
6: 1520
7: 2280
8: 3420
9: 5130
10: 7695
11: 11543
12: 17314

Assume winning a fight when the player's level is 11 with no multiplier gives 10% of the experience for the next level. So a level 1 character gets 1731 experience before multipliers.

Level 1->2:
That 1731 experience gets multiplied by 1024 and the experience gained to required for next level is trivial. Let 1 EXP go for the 300 EXP curve, character has 1730 left.

Level 2->3:
450 is still insignificant to the 512 multiplier with 1730 exp. Burn one, move on. 1729 EXP left.

Level 3->4:
675 vs 1729 * 256 is still trivial. Burn one, move on. 1728 EXP left.

Level 4->5:
1013 vs 1728 * 128 is also still trivial. 1727 EXP left.

Level 5->6:
1520 vs 1727 * 64 is finally not trivial! This leaves 98.6% of the 1727 left, so the character has 1703 EXP left.

Level 6->7:
2280 vs 1703 * 32. Leaves 95.8% of 1703 EXP left, leaving 1631 EXP left.

Level 7->8:
3420 vs 1631 * 16 leaves 86.9% of the 1631 EXP passing 1417 EXP on to the next level.

Level 8->9:
5130 vs 1417 * 8: Leaves 45.3% of the 1417 EXP, giving 641 EXP for the next level.

Level 9->10:
7695 vs 641 * 4: The character gets 2564 / 7695 EXP towards their next level.

I personally like going from level 1->9 (with a third of 9->10 already paid) than 1->2.

I also forgot to mention that with one level per fight and my above assumptions, the character without multipliers would go from level 1->5 while the guy with multipliers would only go from 1->2. The multiplier would eventually pay off when the character isn't getting multiple levels per fight but I think it'd still annoy players.

For a RMVX script that can do that, check the GRS Script Emporium that damn template project. There's a script that adjusts character experience gained based on a character's level against an enemy's 'level'. It'll need some changes to what you want for it but the level-modified experience algorithm is already implemented and it's much better than my poor rounding above.

Mapping out ideas in my brain for a castlevania/supermetroid type game. Have a primitive chrono trigger-esque battle system implemented, have spells that respond to environment worked out, have custom menu designed, items, stats, mechanics, etc.

Now working on laying out the 'castle', the rooms, the progression, and the storyline and all that. Have a general idea of how things will play out. Working on the timeline and the characters in the story, and then will start refining each chapter of the story, which will all be somewhat minor in comparison to the level design itself.

Working up abilities for a fire mage - my last remaining PC to make, though I still need to make some stat changes before I start any battle maps, and details of abilities will be very tentative for some time.

The temptation to make all the spell names/descriptions existing phrases ("fire in his eyes", "hotfoot", "fire in the belly", the list is endless) is strong.

skill hit rate / 10 * ( 100 - ( 5* ( evasion / accuracy ) ^ 4 ) )
where skill hit rate is 10 for a normal skill

70 AC can hit 100 EV with a 61% hit rate.
100 AC can hit 70 EV with a 99% hit rate.
70 v 70 and 100 v 100 is a flat 95%.

Quick! Which one's stronger?

bahleted

Chaos
Quick! Which one's stronger?

The one that will end the fight the quickest with the player winning while still being capable of handling future encounters of course!

NUMBERS.

PS. When I tried to do this as a PNG image it didn't appear, which is the same issue I've been having on the site when posting reviews? What gives?

weird. why do pngs and not bmps require the longer url?

(I am not a number! I'm a free man!)

post=128555
I was more of pointing out the issue with "unusual" or "silly" skill names - specifically, upping the learning the learning curve.

I'd argue that "Aim Boost", "Speed Boost" and "Attack Boost" are better names for those skills because they're purely functional. They tell you exactly what the skill does with no added fluff. Imagine scrolling a list of ten or so of those skills, trying to find the one that deals Fire damage and defense reduction ("Burndown") instead of Fire damage and Blind ("Sizzle").

Personally, I'd say that if you think you need to give your skills "funny" names to entertain your players you need to re-examine your priorities.

Now, you can get a bit of leeway to avoid sounding like the Clear-Eyes guy - "Magic Master" is a better name for a MGC+ skill than "Magic Boost" - but you should be able to tell in a split-second what a skill does without having to scroll to it and read the help info every time.

EDIT: And be consistant, dammit. If you have "Magic Master" for MGC+, you better have "Strength Master" and "Guard Master" instead of "Strength Charge" and "Guard Boost".

I think skills with awesome sounding names and skills that tell you what they do are not mutually exclusive, especially when the help window can handle some or all of the task of conveying what a skill does. And awesome names are important to me (as is functionality).

Also, having Strength Master, Guard Boost, Agility Amp, and Spirit Charge is consistent, as is having them all called x Master. It's only if you have like three of them named one thing and the fourth in the set named differently that you are failing at consistency. If your game has two physical attributes and two magic attributes, and the buffs for them are keyworded differently (two and two, say two "boost" and two "charge" or w/e) you can be consistent that way also.