Author Topic: Experience Points  (Read 25727 times)

st33d

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Experience Points
« on: July 04, 2012, 06:49:55 PM »
So what is the standard formula for doling these out? I ask because I was reading this:

http://userpages.monmouth.com/~colonel/rvm.html#exp

I based my own system on the V4 table. The formula for the table looks to me like (I might be wrong, late in the day):

10 * 2 ^ level

But the experience points table for the monsters with the hit dice thing is bizarrely arbitrary looking. Yet it's supposed to work.

I simply gave up, split 1.5 * XP needed to level up once across the monsters in the level.

But somehow it seems to have worked. You level up steadily with each dungeon level, seeming to think you're ahead of the curve - but you never get past it because the requirement doubles. I added bonus experience based on the total XP, still no effect to progression. I levelled up with the grind stone to level 6. Went into the dungeon and hit trouble at level 7.

So how are other people doing it?

Krice

  • (Banned)
  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 2316
  • Karma: +0/-2
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Experience Points
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2012, 10:04:36 PM »
So how are other people doing it?

Not doing it at all. Experience level (and points) is closely tied to certain type of rpg system so you need to build everything around it. Of course the most important thing is how much you get experience from stuff and how experience levels makes the character better.

Alex E

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Experience Points
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2012, 10:24:18 PM »
The first roguelike I created had each skill (Ex: Axes, Swords, Armor, Archery) increase as you used certain items in said categories. The only problem with it was that the first type of items you found would really be the main type of item you'd use for the rest of the game. Let's say you first found a sword. Well, now your sword level is really high. Would you even want to pick up that axe on the ground, especially considering that enemies are much stronger and you'd do much less damage to them? I don't think so. If enemies continuously spawned then it may have not been a problem because then the player could grind their skills up. But mine didn't respawn, so it was a problem.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 11:08:06 PM by Mosenzov »

kraflab

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • kraflab.com
Re: Experience Points
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2012, 03:08:46 AM »
Here's how the system works in epilogue:

The player needs 80 xp to level up, every level.  It does not scale upwards at all.  However, the amount of xp you get is 2^(3+dungeon_level-player_level).  Thus, you need 10 kills to level up when you are the same level as the monsters, 20 if you are one level above, 40 if two levels above, etc.  You also get bonus xp for rare creature kills and boss kills, so generally the player will be around 2 levels above the dungeon level.  The 10 kill requirement is tuned to the number of enemies on a floor (~15).

Z

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 905
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Z's Roguelike Stuff
Re: Experience Points
« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2012, 08:04:10 AM »
My Vapors of Insanity uses the following system:

Quote
Each creature has its experience value (XP). This experience value works quite similar to the ELO rating used in chess in similar games: relative strength of two beings is supposed to be described by difference between their XP, so a 5000 XP monster is for a 4500 XP monster just as powerful as 1500 XP to 1000 XP. If you beat an enemy with a high XP, your own XP will increase, and the amount of XP gained depends on the difference between your XPs. The only difference between VOI's XP system and ELO rating is that having a higher XP actually makes you more powerful, since your XP determines how high your skills can be increased. In the early game the monsters have experience of about 1000, and in the late game it reaches about 5000.

wire_hall_medic

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Experience Points
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2012, 02:14:07 PM »
The system I used most recently (QuickHack: <http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php/QuickHack> Download, play, comment in the Announcements thread!) is minLevel * swarmFactor.

minLevel is the earliest level in which the enemy can be generated (thus crappy enemies aren't more rewarding on deeper levels).

swarmFactor is an indication of how much of a level's population a particular enemy should take up.  Swarm-type enemies are 1, normal are 2, bruisers are 3.  Upgraded enemies get +1.

Each level requires level * 20 experience.  So to get from level 1 to 2, you need a total of 20 xp.  Then 40 more, then 60 more, etc.

I don't really like murder-based xp (that's what item drops reward), I'd rather do them as story rewards.  But I can't deny that leveling from exterminating your foes is fun.

Snargleplax

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • snargleplax
    • View Profile
    • SnargleQuest dev log
Re: Experience Points
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2012, 06:32:10 AM »
I'm not using XP either.  My current thrust is an attempt to overcome some of the traditional shortcomings of leveling individual skills through use.  I think this approach deserves more exploration, because I'd like to think it could lead to something that feels more like natural learning than the chunky "all of a sudden you've got a skill/hit harder/whatever" approach of typical XP systems.

Learn-through-use has some traditional shortcomings.  As was mentioned, one problem here is that you tend to get committed to whatever you've practiced, limiting your realistic options as you go forward to those which do not instantly cripple you as penalty for changing your mind.

The second problem I see, in games from Secret of Mana to Dwarf Fortress, is that this kind of system requires pointlessly gamey grinding to advance certain skills, simply because you use them less often (e.g. a "teleport to town" spell vs. the fire bolt spell you use in every fight).  Players shouldn't have to do things like go get wounded on purpose so they can grind healing -- skills should advance naturally when you use them naturally.

I don't know of any games that overcome these two obstacles.  I suspect there may be some very fine gameplay on the other side of this boundary, so I've been working up plans to get past it.

My approach involves a couple of things.  First, skills are rubberbanded so that when you try something new, your skill level is never below some lower bound provided by links to similar skills (or failing that, some underlying attribute like Intelligence).  The Shadowrun tabletop RPG had a system like this, IIRC.  So for example maybe you've got 10 skill with bows and suddenly you find a magic crossbow you'd like to use.  The system may determine that these skills are similar enough that you can use a crossbow with, say, a -2 penalty.  Or perhaps it turns out you're something of a jack-of-all-trades with ranged weapons, but expert in none.  This may give you a high score in the overall category, which could be used at maybe a -3 or -4 penalty (or whatever numbers make sense in the system at large).

To reduce grinding, my system rewards doing new things by associating learning with surmounting challenge.  If you've cast the same spell 100 times, or killed 100 goblins, there's little more to learn from doing the same again.  The skill gained from such practice should enable the player to venture in new directions, to find new challenges to learn from.  Also, the system rewards near-misses (in proportion to nearness), because of course we learn from those too.  I think if you fight a terrible monster, injure it non-fatally, and escape within an inch of your life, you probably learn something in the process!  Shouldn't the game represent that?

Of course, there will be all kinds of balance issues, exploits to consider, and so on.  Still, I'm hopeful for this approach, because XP just seems boring to me.  Then again, maybe it's just personal bias against simple linear approximations for complex processes; see my other thread on doing away with hit points. :)

requerent

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Experience Points
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2012, 06:30:34 AM »
Something else worth considering---

It takes a lifetime to learn how to properly handle a Bow, but it only takes a couple of hours to learn how to properly handle a basic Crossbow. The bowman will be able to use a Crossbow very effectively, but likely not much less effectively than a crossbowman. On the other hand, it would be practically impossible for a crossbowman to pick up a Bow and find it useful.

Similarly with Spear/Halberds, Knives/Swords, etc.


kraflab

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • kraflab.com
Re: Experience Points
« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2012, 06:50:46 AM »
Something else worth considering---

It takes a lifetime to learn how to properly handle a Bow, but it only takes a couple of hours to learn how to properly handle a basic Crossbow. The bowman will be able to use a Crossbow very effectively, but likely not much less effectively than a crossbowman. On the other hand, it would be practically impossible for a crossbowman to pick up a Bow and find it useful.

Similarly with Spear/Halberds, Knives/Swords, etc.



It didn't take me very long (a few hours?) to pick up a bow and become relatively good at using it when I tried out archery in college.  At least as good at using a crossbow.  Depending on the bow and the crossbow it might be harder for you to load the crossbow, and in fact you might not know how to do it properly (and quickly) if you've never handled one before, whereas a bow is pretty obvious.  It heavily depends on the bow and on the crossbow certainly, but a bowman might find it very difficult to load a crossbow repeatedly, while a crossbowman might find a short bow and wield it easily, or the opposite could happen.  Just my input.  The crossbow that I have used was much more complicated than a bow.

guest509

  • Guest
Re: Experience Points
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2012, 09:44:37 AM »
  Finally something I know a bit about.

BOWS


NOTE: All bows are rendered nearly useless if the enemy has a shield and they see the user drawing to fire.
    
Crossbows: Useless unless you know how to load, which takes 10 minutes to learn (nearly useless at level 0 skill, big jump by level 1). After that further training doesn't help too much (minor increase per level). Also long range shots are difficult because of the crossbow body getting in the way (huge drop off in hit% at range). Slow to load. Very slow (say 2-3 turns to reload). Also the crossbow tends to slow a man down more than other weapons.

Bows: Intuitive, start off with a pretty good effectiveness (okay at level 0). Practice helps a TON (good increase in effectiveness per level). Maybe a bit shorter ranged than crossbow, but at the same range they are easier to hit something with (greater hit% at range). Quick and easy to load.

Long Bow: Intuitive but takes a lot of strength to use correctly. Otherwise see 'bow'. Historically it was hard to field these units as the weapon is hard to draw and actually hit something with. This was not a skill issue so much as a strength issue (this is controversial, do not take my word for it. Try one...)

Hand Weapons


Mace/Club: Very easy to use (good ability at level 0). Skill doesn't help that much, more of a strength and footwork weapon (little effectiveness increase per level). Largely ineffective against armor, but also does not get stuck in armor which is cool. Very easy to make and pick up off the ground.

Axe:
Also easy to use, but can hurt the wielder because the shaft is not balanced. So good damage at low level with moderate increase in safety with skill/level. Sort of easy to make, cheap to make, very common in fantasy/premodern settings. Hell it's common in modern settings. I have at least 5. Okay against armor, also the weight of the strike would make critical hits common at any expertise level.

Sword: As effective as an axe at level 0, but less effective against armor at low levels. Slashing is NOT effective against armor. Not at all. At higher levels thrusting is perfected and then you can take on armor very well. Most swords are also good at parrying melee attacks, especially Japanese swords. Axes are useless in that role. Historically swords were very expensive, but so superior that everyone coveted them.

Spear:
Easy to learn (solid level 0 weapon) but without a ton of effectiveness gained at higher levels of proficiency. Valued for their length (hit 2 squares away?), one could stand off from a foe. Also thrusting is very conducive to unit fighting, but a TON of training and a shield is needed for that. Japanese Ashigaru (peasant spear) did not use shields, but then no Japanese really did. Most dungeon crawlers do not include entire units, which is where this weapon really shines. Good at piercing armor or dealing kill shots to the heart of enemies or beasts, this would require a small amount of skill and training at knowing where to strike (so CRIT with this weapon is learned later, but not too much later).

Pike: Nearly useless one on one. A unit weapon only. 2 or 3 times the reach of the average spear. Lengths depend on time period. Easy to learn individually, unit fighting is the main issue one must master. Like a spear just longer. The unwieldy length will slow a man down. Massively effective against mounted men that charge from the front, but the unwieldy nature of the weapon makes it hard to change facing, so a quick horseman could hit from the side and gain massive advantage (CRIT!). Against footmen, or in a dungeon, a good kill shit is nearly impossible to land (low crit rate even at high levels).

Halberd/Polearm: Massively popular during medieval times for the foot soldier. Almost as easy as a good axe to produce, these death on a stick weapons were also fairly easy to use effectively. Used in 2 hands, with good length, an advanced user could not only slash (level 0), thrust through armor (low level technique) but also snare with the hook and pull knights off horses or trip up armored men (higher level move). The issue is that shields were not often used with this weapon, so bow fire could really do a lot of damage.

SOME OTHER WEAPONS

Daggers - Easy to use at low level but low damage. AT higher level one knows EXACTLY where to hit and at what angle, so crits are huge. Short weapons, so you need to get in close. In game terms it means you need to catch someone unaware in order to score a critical/mortal blow. Daggers in Russia are used to kill bears. You just have to know where to thrust. Google it. It's true.

Flails - Have a great range and radius of attack, but require a ton of dexterity to use. Useless at lower levels of skill. Very good against unarmored assailants. Very weak versus armor.

Short Swords -
A surprisingly hard to use weapon. Low level use includes slashing, which is largely ineffective with this weapon, at mid level one starts to learn the thrusting and kill/critical areas on the enemy. The elite level users could use this to parry melee blows, but only the elites. The movie Gladiator is a surprisingly good show of this. Note that this weapon is short and super accurate to wield, so an unsuspecting enemy can very easily get critted just like a dagger.

Great Weapons -
Huge clubs, Great Swords, No Dachi and the like. These are low skill weapons. Practice as much as you want and you'll not get better at using them. They are all about strength, not skill. So level gain yields little additional effectiveness. They are of medium effectiveness against armor, but not due to thrusting. These weapons are nearly useless for thrusting. They are just so heavy they can stun an armored enemy, who can then be dispatched in a variety of ways.

Okay that's enough for now. I was going to get into more esoteric weapons and early gunpowder weapons but this is enough for now I think.

Quendus

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 447
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • $@ \in \{1,W\} \times \{1,H\}$
    • View Profile
    • Klein Roguelikes
Re: Experience Points
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2012, 09:20:11 PM »
Finally something I know a bit about.
[snip infodump]
OK, this is going to be *very* useful for my current project. Nice broad summary. Wouldn't be surprised if the Ultima Ratio Regum guy would benefit from taking a look at this either.

Darren Grey

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 2027
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • It is pitch black. You are likely to eat someone.
    • View Profile
    • Games of Grey
Re: Experience Points
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2012, 11:37:59 PM »
I'm not using XP either.  My current thrust is an attempt to overcome some of the traditional shortcomings of leveling individual skills through use.  I think this approach deserves more exploration, because I'd like to think it could lead to something that feels more like natural learning than the chunky "all of a sudden you've got a skill/hit harder/whatever" approach of typical XP systems.

The traditional "all at once" approach is much easier for players to grasp though, and allows delivery of interesting new content like granting the player a special usable abilities like firing 2 arrows at once, etc.  And it makes it easier when designing monsters and their abilities.

Also, anything approaching "real" combat sucks and should be ignored  :P  Real combat and learning is horrible.  A combat-based game should be about the game first, with the combat elements being more thematic than a true influence on the mechanics.  Same goes for experience and advancement in a game.

kraflab

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • kraflab.com
Re: Experience Points
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2012, 09:06:41 AM »
I think the main problem with level-thru-use is that you end up in one of two situations: A) you repetitively grind an ability to increase it (see morrowind/oblivion) or B) if it is not possible to do that, you end up with something like victory dancing in crawl (which is removed now i believe) to overcome whatever attempt to prevent it was put in place.

I definitely like the idea of level-thru-use, but I've just never seen it done where I wasn't compelled to grind, or felt that I needed to spam certain abilities in combat to improve them, which is less fun than the alternatives in my opinion.

Skeletor

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 580
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • villains ftw
    • View Profile
Re: Experience Points
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2012, 09:20:50 AM »
 Finally something I know a bit about.[...]

Whoah, great post man!
What I enjoy the most in roguelikes: Anti-Farming and Mac Givering my way out. Kind of what I also enjoy in life.

st33d

  • Rogueliker
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Experience Points
« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2012, 08:02:46 PM »
I definitely like the idea of level-thru-use, but I've just never seen it done where I wasn't compelled to grind, or felt that I needed to spam certain abilities in combat to improve them, which is less fun than the alternatives in my opinion.

I'm reminded of throwing all your equipment and clothes in Dungeon Master to gain Ninja levels.

I think grind-usage can be okay so long as you only allow them to level a skill through meaningful use. But then you'd have to make sure that complementary skills level up in tandem. You can't have a wizard get all-mighty with magic and then expect them to assume a fighter role if they're going to ever increase their health. RPGs favour specialists. Which is why bards are often shit to play.