PC Shared XP should mean Shared XP

[Maynard69]

Well, I don't think the devs agree or they wouldn't have added in the first place. I don't understand why so many people here hate the idea of more options. More options are good, no?? I don't see any reason to be against options. I could sort of understand, if there was no option to disable or enable (as it is now), but if there is an option, what's the problem? Man, I guess even options can't make everyone happy I guess lol.
If you don't even agree that an OPTION to change it is a good thing, then yeah, there is no middle ground in this discussion.

Anyway its like this in all games. Try to play Ark solo competitively in a vanilla server. You will fail. That's just how it is. Same with trying to play an MMO solo, the list goes on.

^^ And this is why I play either Solo in a non MP game or play in MP game with friends only. Because yeah, there's no competing with teams, in any game.

I love options. But the last thing I would want to see is slider in the main menu for "Fair for all players----up to---Completely unfair for some players"

Also I have no problems competing with teams, I have done it for 6000+ hours. Rarely die and have only been successfully raided a couple of times. (1 was hacker, the other was the only time I teamed up with a group and moved into their build) I do have a problem when its completely impossible and skewed too heavily in their favor.

I understand the game is not being developed for PvP, and not balanced at all for it, it might never be. I have accepted that. But the balance issues extend to PvE as well.

How enjoyable will it be for any solo player who might be playing optimally trying to compete with others for kills and levels, just to see others completely destroy him in progress/ feature unlocks, but putting in less time on the server and maybe even less kills? Its just not good. While this might be expected to a degree, there is no need to pile on extra advantage to the teams when they already have that.

Lol, how butthurt will the solo guy be when one of the team members tell him that other 5 members are all afk while he is fighting screamergeddon hordes to power level them? He will probably ragequit and drop a bad review.

So ya, I dont see a middle ground. The only thing close would be change it to "split the xp between party members for kills" with an option to turn it on off in party settings or something.

Instead of granting them additional xp and additional advantage over all other players depending on the size of their group. To me this is just so flawed.

 

[Roland]

When I first saw the idea pitched I thought it was sharing xp while doing a quest together. I figured that the proximity requirement would be close so that everyone in the party doing the quest would share each other’s xp. I was surprised to see how it turned out and that there were options to increase the proximity to....uh....the opposite of proximity.

That’s the way I think it should be. Reduce the proximity to 30 meters and only active once a quest marker has been activated. That is what makes sense to me. Sharing all xp with each other from across the map? What’s next? We all get full when one dude eats? I heal too when you pop a pain pill?

 

[AtomicUs5000]

What is shared XP supposed to represent? Learn by watching?

 

[Roland]

I thought it represented working together to accomplish a quest so you didn’t have to worry about who got the kill hit because you’d share the xp. This is only ever an issue when you are both close to each other enough to be targeting the same enemies.

Who knew it would turn into long distance leeching and then a request to add all other activities as well.

 

[AtomicUs5000]

I thought it represented working together to accomplish a quest so you didn’t have to worry about who got the kill hit because you’d share the xp. This is only ever an issue when you are both close to each other enough to be targeting the same enemies.
Who knew it would turn into long distance leeching?

Ah I see. Yeah, this would make the most sense.

 

[Gazz]

Shared xp should be exactly that: shared. Not doubled.

Well, it's actually about tripled for groups of 5+, something I don't really agree with.

Some bonus per player in the group - I can see that. It's an incentive and covers for the inevitable organisational downtime of groups. Just not 200%.

 

[Maynard69]

Well, it's actually about tripled for groups of 5+, something I don't really agree with.
Some bonus per player in the group - I can see that. It's an incentive and covers for the inevitable organisational downtime of groups. Just not 200%.

I dont get why there is any bonus for a group. Groups already hold the advantage over solo players in every way. Organizational downtime? how? More people splitting the same amount of work does not equal down time. It is the complete opposite in fact. Its not like we are making a video game, just playing one.

 

[A Nice Cup of Tea]

When I first saw the idea pitched I thought it was sharing xp while doing a quest together. I figured that the proximity requirement would be close so that everyone in the party doing the quest would share each other’s xp. I was surprised to see how it turned out and that there were options to increase the proximity to....uh....the opposite of proximity.

Whereas when I first heard the idea mentioned I was excited by the thought that it meant that co-op play could be done a lot more "fairly" so that you could have one player looting and another farming and another mining and there would be no issues with those activities awarding different amounts of experience and players specialising in different roles therefore increasing in level at different rates because the sharing would even it all out.

In fact my first reactions to hearing about it were asking if the sharing radius could be increased to cover the whole map and asking in the mod section about the possibility of modding it to do so if it didn't already.

I was happily surprised when A17 came out and it turned out that it did have an option to cover the whole map, but I'm rather disappointed that it's not proper sharing. Only zombie killing xp gets "shared", and it's not even actually shared xp - it's bonus xp, which means that everyone goes up levels quicker than they should and the gamestage ramps up quicker than it should.

I'd be really happy if "shared" xp meant that all xp was actually shared (i.e. split between the partied-up players) rather than just extra zombie xp being given out as a bonus to other partied-up players.

 

[theFlu]

Edited: Oops, replied at the bottom of the first page, this was a a bit stale then.

Anyway it's not "More" exp, think of it this way, a team kills zombies faster, so yes, faster exp. Per zombie, its the same exp as solo but you kill more faster, so yeah, it's going to be faster, why not?

The problem is, it actually is MORE exp per zombie.

I don't have the exact number, but you get 550 for a solo kill of a normie, and I think about 450, 490? in a two man team. so from 550 to 900 or so, per kill.

 

[Kage848]

lol, oh he has a shovel ... but with my mining skils I mine considerably faster and don't need stamina break. My XP count drawves his even with us both mining.

Now that harvesting xp has been raised to nice levels I can see this as an issue. I agree, that xp should be shared.

On a somewhat related topic, I dont like the range increase on the xp sharing. I think sp sharing should force you to work together. If your off 1km away doing whatever you should not get the xp from someone else clearing a poi. It defeats the purpose of having people work together to clear a building. Just my 2c.

 

[A Nice Cup of Tea]

On a somewhat related topic, I dont like the range increase on the xp sharing. I think sp sharing should force you to work together. If your off 1km away doing whatever you should not get the xp from someone else clearing a poi. It defeats the purpose of having people work together to clear a building. Just my 2c.

I can see the arguments for both sides on that one.

On the one hand, keeping the range short encourages people to work together on a quest or clearing a building.

On the other hand, having a long range means that people can divide up labour so each does what they enjoy (building/farming/looting/questing) without anyone getting too far ahead or behind in level.

The first is better for public servers where people are mostly independent with their own home bases and will just party up occasionally for a quest or to clear a large poi. The second is better for private servers where a family and/or friends spend the whole game partied up and working together from a single shared home base.

But even better is having both options in the game so everyone can play in their preferred style.

 

[Viktoriusiii]

Let me just list off all the benefits of not doubling (or trippling) xp and sharing it instead:

The range of xp share wouldn't matter, as you aren't punished for beeing away, as you get the same amount of total xp (you are not missing out)

Balancing would be 10x easier (remember that they removed levelgating for one experimental? Yeah. That was added back in, because players in groups leveled too fast. (because of course they do! They get multiplicative xp!)

It would be less punishing! (if you want to solo now, you have to grind doubletime on top of having to specialize and waiting for perks to unlock)

Any discussion about shared xp would instantly fall flat on its bum, as there are no issues anymore.

Why was this added in anyways? Yes Ark has it... But there it is only a SUPER small amount(not doubled or even trippled), distance restricted and its only really usefull in the earlygame, as lateron you get most of you xp from killing dinos with dinos and dinos don't share xp!

I have no idea how this is STILL not fixed. This is as simple as setting "xpgainforgroupmember=100%" to 50%(maybe 55 if you want a small bonus)

 

[archimp]

Yes optiononly this. I like shared exp. Because in multiplaying its important. I have example one ftiend who play way too less as me. So its nice to powerlevel him and he eventually get same spit as me because exp is slower much slower in the endgame

 

[Cirion]

The problem is, it actually is MORE exp per zombie.I don't have the exact number, but you get 550 for a solo kill of a normie, and I think about 450, 490? in a two man team. so from 550 to 900 or so, per kill.

Again, that's not more exp per kill...

550 solo kill

550 team kill

solo = x zombies per minute

team = y*x zombies per minute (where y= number of players)

FASTER, not "more"

*EDIT* I think i see the argument now. You want a team kill to reduce it from 550 to whatever. Well, that no longer makes it worthwhile to team for exp t hen. Let's say you kill zombies 3x faster but now each kill is 1/3 the exp, why bother then?? I could perhaps be on board with somewhat of a reduction, but not the full 1/3.

 

[Jedo]

Again, that's not more exp per kill...
550 solo kill

550 team kill

solo = x zombies per minute

team = y*x zombies per minute (where y= number of players)

FASTER, not "more"

*EDIT* I think i see the argument now. You want a team kill to reduce it from 550 to whatever. Well, that no longer makes it worthwhile to team for exp t hen. Let's say you kill zombies 3x faster but now each kill is 1/3 the exp, why bother then?? I could perhaps be on board with somewhat of a reduction, but not the full 1/3.

Well, a reduction in team xp by the size of the team would result in the same net xp/player as the solo player, would it not? What you haven't calculated for is that the team can kill more zombies faster, and that is their advantage. Right now, a team is getting a double advantage by getting most of the same xp/player AND being able to kill more zombies in the same amount of time.

 

[Gamida]

I still find "shared" xp a bit off if it is like I thought.

Shared to me is taking the xp of the kill and sharing it among the party.

Amounts are changed below to make it easier for calculation.

If killing a zombie gives 500 xp then if I get 500 xp and another party member gets 400, that is 900 xp. That is not sharing xp. To me sharing would be if I got 400 and the other person got 100. If they made the kill then I get the 100 and they get the 400.

That gives everyone in party more incentive to participate in the zombie killing. Other than that then on horde night for example I could stay out of harms way and collect a bunch of xp from others in party who were taking damage and using up their ammo.

Am curious how it is finally all balanced out in end.

*Edit*

Just read this over after posting and it seems to take away incentive to be in a party if the xp is shared that way. If there are 10 zombies worth 500 xp each I would get 5000 xp on my own. If in a party and they "shared" the xp then I could still kill the 10 zombies but would get less xp and the party would get a share for not even participating......I don't know how it can be done unless yes the killer gets full xp for the kill and the party gets their own share of it. Still not worth being in a party for me if I am doing the work, using my own ammo and taking the risk of dying or getting infected for same amount of xp as if I wasn't in a party.

lol, am at that point where I have overthought it so much I have myself confused.

 

[Cirion]

Well, a reduction in team xp by the size of the team would result in the same net xp/player as the solo player, would it not? What you haven't calculated for is that the team can kill more zombies faster, and that is their advantage. Right now, a team is getting a double advantage by getting most of the same xp/player AND being able to kill more zombies in the same amount of time.

No. It's not faster. By definition, "faster" means faster... as in more EXP/HR.

By the proposed changes by people here who dislike the current system, it is precisely the SAME exp/hr as solo.

Solo = 500 exp per kill. Let's say, for sake of argument, 2 kills a minute average. That's 1000 exp per minute = 60,000 exp per hour.

Team of 3 players = 500 exp per kill. 6 kills a minute average. Divided by 3 per player = still EFFECTIVELY 2 "full kills a minute average or 60,000 exp per hour per player. the exact same as solo. Yes its technically 6 kills a minute, but I say 2 because you gotta divide by 3

 

[Cirion]

Now, if you want to argue REDUCING the exp for a team, but not dropping it to be equal to solo, then we can talk fair, IMO.

This is how most MMO's do it.

Let's take an example of what this might look like.

Solo = 500 exp per enemy = 60,000 an hour xp (as shown in previous equations)

2 player = 375 exp per player (Not quite the full 500 any more, but not reduced all the way to 250) = 90,000 an hour exp (Assuming 2x the kill rate)

So 2 player is 50% better exp per hour rather than 100% or 0%, a fair compromise, IMO.

All that said.

Maybe I'm in the minority but I have the following belief. In a sandbox game like this, there should be options to do virtually ANYTHING you want. No matter how absurd, ludicrous, crazy a setting is to use. That said, I agree that crazier settings should not be default.

I'm pushing back hard because I love shared exp as it is. I'm the builder, a teammate is the zombie killer. I don't get good exp with the mining changes. Not until mid game at least. Yes they boosted mining exp but it's still not great early game compared to zombies.

If this does get changed at least let us change the # shared kills and distance shared in an XML file somewhere or something.

The reason why I am passionate about this is because like I said it's one of my favorite new settings. I get that others may not like it, which is again - options options options.

 

[Gamida]

Cirion, the distance for shared xp can already be set. When you start a new game it is under the multiplayer tag or if on a dedi you can set it in the xml.

 

[Cirion]

Cirion, the distance for shared xp can already be set. When you start a new game it is under the multiplayer tag or if on a dedi you can set it in the xml.

Yes sorry what I meant to say was if TFP decides they want to eliminate the option from the main slider to at least keep it still in the XML.

Same as if they decide to cave to pressure and eliminate "bonus" exp within a team, as long as you can still change it back with a setting then I'm fine with it.