some ideas related to sponge

[Spink]

I have heard some other players discussing the issues pertaining to sponge levels, and I thought it might be nice for these concerns to be brought to a more public venue.

*** At the moment, a 6x20 vker sponges the same amount of xp as a 3x40, with a fraction of the utility. It might be beneficial to bring xp more in line with utility, perhaps by weighting levels 21-40 more than levels 1-20.

*** Powerful avatars (5x40+) sponge a great deal of xp, which is good, granted their utility. However this proportional increase in utility does not match the proportional increase in xp sponge, as compared to a 3x40. Since there are diminishing returns in utility, it might be beneficial to have similar diminishing returns in xp sponge.

These are ideas put forth by players far more experienced than I, who for some reason have grown tired of fighting to make this great mud better than it already is. I figured I could do a small service by making these voices public.

Please post your thoughts regarding this. I am particularly interested in hearing how difficult it would be to implement, and of course any exceedingly good reasons against it.

[Nobody]

Howdy,

The fact that classes in the later levels seem to be universally recognized as 'sponge' levels suggest to me that most folks recognize they aren't really getting much utility from these levels aside from a greater chunk of exp when grouping. Even when newbies ask about class choices, 85% of the responses seem to be just the first four classes, with 13% extending to a fifth class and the occasional fluke mention of the rest. The last two classes are largely extraneous, yet they require billions of exp for such minimal gains.

Splitting exp based on utility would be great, but determining just who is useful and to what degree is implausible. The notions of usefulness and equitable return of said usefulness are subjective, while the game is limited to only objective rewards. A 1x40 cleric prime might seem more useful than a 3x40 Thief who isn't the primary stabber. A 2x20 sancer is so much more useful than a 5x40 bot. But how is the game supposed to determine this?

A large part of this perceived inequity could be a result of the sharp drop in one's own share of exp whenever a larger character with hundreds of levels in filler classes joins a group, particularly when the addition of the high level char does not extend the runs enough to compensate for the exp drop.

Sadly, given the extraordinary complexity required to create a more equitable exp split system and the mindlessness of grinding exp in groups, I sincerely doubt anything will be done regarding this matter.

Nobody in particular

[Thraxas]

Howdy,

The fact that classes in the later levels seem to be universally recognized as 'sponge' levels suggest to me that most folks recognize they aren't really getting much utility from these levels aside from a greater chunk of exp when grouping. Even when newbies ask about class choices, 85% of the responses seem to be just the first four classes, with 13% extending to a fifth class and the occasional fluke mention of the rest. The last two classes are largely extraneous, yet they require billions of exp for such minimal gains.

Splitting exp based on utility would be great, but determining just who is useful and to what degree is implausible. The notions of usefulness and equitable return of said usefulness are subjective, while the game is limited to only objective rewards. A 1x40 cleric prime might seem more useful than a 3x40 Thief who isn't the primary stabber. A 2x20 sancer is so much more useful than a 5x40 bot. But how is the game supposed to determine this?

A large part of this perceived inequity could be a result of the sharp drop in one's own share of exp whenever a larger character with hundreds of levels in filler classes joins a group, particularly when the addition of the high level char does not extend the runs enough to compensate for the exp drop.

Sadly, given the extraordinary complexity required to create a more equitable exp split system and the mindlessness of grinding exp in groups, I sincerely doubt anything will be done regarding this matter.

Nobody in particular

Not many posts here that agree with in their entirity ... this however is one.

Well said.

T

[Toxis]

One of the best posts I've ever seen.. are you a polititian?

[Spink]

Thanks for responding!

So, pulling bullets from what you said, we can infer this:

* more 21-40 levels doesn't necessarily indicate higher utility, so this is a bad metric for determining xp sponge

* any other metrics for determining objective utility (such as damage done, damage taken, or healing done) do not account for buffs and debuffs

* the complexity of combining any of these metrics is unattractive


My only argument regarding this is that these mechanics are already in place. People already gain more xp based on levels, and already get some experience for damage dealt (I am not sure about damage taken or healing done). It makes no sense to not attempt to optimize the system we already have.

To tweak these formulae does not seem terribly complex, but I am not immortal, so perhaps I underestimate.

[blackmore]

I see a couple of issues with your arguments.

If you're giving xp based on value to the group, then certain classes would get more xp than others. A 1x40 mage prime is casting the same spells as a 4x40 mage prime, but a 1x40 thief prime contributes far less to the group than a 4x40 thief prime - and the 3rd bard prime in a group is looking for other things to do - yet a 9x40 bard prime is barely any different frorm a 1x40 bard prime.

The xp tables are pretty much set in stone. If you're shifting the xp share in a group, that would have an unknown impact on levelling at various level ranges.

Your suggestion, if I understand it right, was to take xp away from the lowest levels, and the highest levels. I can see at the lowest levels, though they don't take a large share of the xp as it is. The higher level you get, the harder it is to level - so you'd be making it harder to level for those that level slowest already.

[Spink]

Yes, I certainly don't want to penalize those high level avatars that already spend so much time to get their extremely marginal improvements. That situation really doesn't need exacerbation.

Most games get around these lvl-based experience splitting mechanics with relatively little issue, simply due to the fact that they are blessed with a large player base. Players of similar levels group together to take on monsters which are appropriate for their level.

However, this is not an option in sloth. There simply aren't enough players to have this sort of grouping dynamic. The suggestions regarding xp splitting were targetted at reducing the gross inequalities involved in grouping with players of very different levels, which seems a necessity here.

I am surprised to see that there is zero support for these sorts of ideas. I suppose this implies that the majority of players find the current system to be acceptable.

Since there is apparently no dissatisfaction, there's no need for any change.

[Rubiks]

While I would not say the current system is perfect, I would say that it is better than just about anything I could come up with. I do offer the following adjustment:

Partition off somewhere between 1% and 10% of the group XP and do not distribute this. This is the award xp. The group leader can see the award XP via 'group', or alternatively/additionally each time xp is accumulated. At any point while grouping the leader can can distribute this XP to members who are 'more useful' to the group, via an 'award' command, which broadcasts XP awards. Something like:

award 500000 Rubiks (draw up to 500k from award xp for me )
award 1000000 Stabber Healer Gripper (divide 1m between some people)
award all Bob (he's a great guy)

Possibly, the leader could not award him/herself the xp (Already getting lead xp anyway), and possibly unawarded xp is lost.

I feel that if this was implemented with the correct numbers and supported by players it could have a positive effect on grouping. Currently, there is little incentive for players to actively group in an XP where botting nets the same XP as actively participating; in this system being an asset to the group comes with more tangible rewards (than not dying).

tl;dr : let players determine usefulness, not the game.

[jezer]

A game as old as sloth, developed by as many people as it is, will become extremely fragmented in it's source code over time. As the source over time becomes complex and more "ad hoc" features are added, it makes it harder to fix things and make improvements without widespread consolidation and complete rewrites. If anything it's a marvel the game works as good as it does.

There are widespread mathematical things about sloth that have a ways to go in being fair, yet alone good or perfect. At the end of the day these things don't seem to mater for some reason, because people keep playing the game for their own personal reasons. I think a few of the problems, xp for levels, xp gain, area xp are kind of linked together in such a way it would be pretty hard to tackle one of them without tackling all of them. It's almost a bit late to try now. It should have been done before the new sloth was released.