Suggestion : Make exp penalty hurt (but not too much ;-)

[PaulBlay]

My suggestion comes in two parts. First although a High Elf should take rather longer to get there than a Kobold both character races reach the same maximum level. So, IMO, the exp penalty doesn't hurt as much as it should.

What I suggest instead is that instead of a maximum level there should be a maximum exp value. A character with a exp penalty of 0% could reach level 50 with that maximum exp, characters with high exp penalties won't be able to get that high a maximum level and those with lower than zero exp penalties can actually get above level 50.

Second part of the suggestion. Try to smooth out 'bumps' in the level progression. If warriors get +1 blow at level 50, most people won't want to play a race that only gets to level 48. One possibility is to implement 'fractional blows'. A fighter with 3.1 blows would get 3 blows most of the time, and 4 blows once every ten rounds.

Actually, because there are more exp penalties than bonuses, there should probably be a bit of rebalancing (say try reducing exp penalties on all races and classes by 10%).

[Atarlost]

You do realize the game is balanced for races with exp penalties, don't you? Humans are considered a challenge race.

[PaulBlay]

You do realize the game is balanced for races with exp penalties, don't you? Humans are considered a challenge race.

The fact that the exp penalties exist is simply because some races are 'better' than others. That non-human races like High-Elves are so popular just makes it clear that the playing field isn't level.

If you're just going to take the position that some races are intentionally harder/easier than others and it's meant to be like that then why not just dump the exp penalty system entirely and introduce a point bonus based on which race you choose?

[Pete Mack]

I don't understand your criticism. Of course some races are easier than others, and the EXP penalty makes a small balancing contribution in the other direction.

But what do you mean by a "point bonus"?

IMO, the current model is adequate, not broken. (And it works better than the strange model in FA.)

[PaulBlay]

I don't understand your criticism. Of course some races are easier than others, and the EXP penalty makes a small balancing contribution in the other direction.

That's it. I don't see why some races should (intentionally) be easier than others. It isn't like there are birth options like IRONMAN_PLAYHUMAN

I think people should be choosing races because they're cool, because they suit their game style or because they suit the class they want to play but not because they are easier (or harder) than other races.

My suggestion is basically similar to how the Effective Character Level is often handled in D&D based games. You can play a Drow and get all the nice racial bonuses and abilities, but if they're handing out enough XP to get standard characters to level 20 you'll only get to 18.

But what do you mean by a "point bonus"?

All other things being equal have PCs of 'harder' races turn up higher on the ladder than 'easier' races. I was only half serious about that suggestion.

[Pete Mack]

My suggestion is basically similar to how the Effective Character Level is often handled in D&D based games. You can play a Drow and get all the nice racial bonuses and abilities, but if they're handing out enough XP to get standard characters to level 20 you'll only get to 18.

That is exactly how things work currently--a 100% experience penalty corresponds to about a 2-3 level penalty in character level.

[PaulBlay]

That is exactly how things work currently--a 100% experience penalty corresponds to about a 2-3 level penalty in character level.

The point is that that '2-3 level penalty' only lasts the relatively short time until they get the extra exp to hit the hard level cap. If there was a hard exp cap instead then there would be a real disincentive for choosing those races (and a real incentive for choosing other ones).

[Atarlost]

And most people find Angband hard enough with high elves that can get to level 50. Going the other way and making humans and kobolds and half-elves more powerful will upset the people who want a challenge level between V dwarf and some over-the-top-sadistic variant.

[Pete Mack]

@paul
the difference between cl 47 and cl 50 is incremental--something like 75HP and 50-100 points to_hit. (For mage, it's also 9% improvement in mana storm casting.)

So why should it take long to get from one to the other? By that point, you are generally focusing on getting endgame materials, not on advancing you EXP anyway. (EXP matters most between cl 30 and cl 40-45, where I tend to find it hardest to advance.)

[Magnate]

I think this is related to the issue of whether the game is balanced for divers or scummers (sorry, fast or slow players - or whatever labels you don't find offensive). If you play at Neo speed (very slowly), it's true that the exp penalty is largely irrelevant - but if you dive, it can be very significant facing Morgy at cl44 rather than 47 (or whatever).

Personally I disagree with Paul's basic premise that all races should be equally attractive. If they were to be made equally attractive, an exp penalty alone is a very ham-fisted way to do it. IMO it's equally ham-fisted in D&D - ISTR there are quite a lot more Deep Gnomes running around than half-elves ... and besides, Angband has come a long way from D&D ...

CC

[Nick]

IMO, the current model is adequate, not broken. (And it works better than the strange model in FA.)

Strange ???

[Donald Jonker]

Maybe this isn't exactly what the thread is about, but I much prefer FA's model of races, where there are substantive and interesting differences between them.

There're easy races as well (Longbeards and Maia), but all the distinctions tend to be much more momentous than the choices in Vanilla, where the only really interesting races are dwarves, high-elves, kobalds, and half-trolls. The others suffer not only from inferiority but a distinct lack of flavor, which is decidedly not a problem with races in FA.

In brief, I'd favor balancing the races (there are plenty of better ways to do it than adjusting XP), and make them more interesting.

[Pete Mack]

@Nick--
it IS strange. As a High-Elf (or Dunadan) you start with an excellent weapon and cl ~5. Then you stair-scum for a few character levels. Then you start advancing very quickly because you are effectively quite deep, and you have no EXP penalty.

[Nick]

@Nick--
it IS strange. As a High-Elf (or Dunadan) you start with an excellent weapon and cl ~5. Then you stair-scum for a few character levels. Then you start advancing very quickly because you are effectively quite deep, and you have no EXP penalty.

This is only strange if you assume all races should have an equal chance of winning the game with a given turncount. This is not the case in FA, by intent. One of the chief aims of the game is authenticity, so the fact that out of 40-odd winners on the ladder there are no hobbits, green-elves, easterlings, petty-dwarves or dwarves, and a couple of Beornings only because Dean has a thing for bears, is to my mind a measure of success.

Playing a High-Elf Assassin is certainly fun. Playing a Dwarf Ranger is a different kind of fun, but still fun (for some people). I'm pleased (and owe a debt to Leon and Bahman) to have a game where such diversity of playing experience (pun intended) is possible.

[Polyonymous]

The point is that that '2-3 level penalty' only lasts the relatively short time until they get the extra exp to hit the hard level cap. If there was a hard exp cap instead then there would be a real disincentive for choosing those races (and a real incentive for choosing other ones).

Play for turn count. To get to any level for winning a 100% penalty means that you need twice as many kills and need to spend the time regenerating the mana/hp. (racial starting stats as a bonus are a tradeoff in a turn count model).

Slow players have maximized stats by the time the the xp penalty doesn't matter and in nonmaximized mode that means that the stat bonuses are nonexistant. This argument must be about the impact for slow players in maximized mode.

I'm of the position that the game should be balanced for minimum turn count between wins (characters that don't make it have their turn count count, I'm open to both turn count and action count metrics). Under this assumption, the xp penalty matters as either getting to level 50 takes longer for people who like to accomplish that before venturing past some virtual marker, and it also makes getting a sufficient level take longer for people who go when they're ready.

What balance assumption should Angband be using? Give us that, and then derive how xp penalties don't affect balance negatively, but stats impact it positively. I'm struggling to come up with a metric that doesn't have the longer time to reaching a given level to win making a difference, except under the assumption of extremely slow play (borg worm farm to 50, then take over as a player, etc).

If you want to compile your game under such a regime, just change #define PY_MAX_EXP 99999999L /* Maximum exp */ in defines.h to be 4500000L and then only human warriors will ever hit level 50.


Tangent- I'd be curious what competant fast divers turn count between wins is. It'd have to be over multiple winners to make it accurate. If a 250k winner takes 10 characters, 7 of which die at 75k and 2 of which die at 150k, the last of which wins at 250k, that's just over a million turns (1,075k). A slower player, might win every two characters in about 600k turns with one death around 400k turns. That's a better between deaths turn count, but it doesn't get the glory like the 250k winner. I think it'd be nice if the dump screen tracked turns since the savefile had a winner. (the counter would stop on winning and only restart on birth, or more accurately suicide)