PC Shared XP should mean Shared XP

[Psychodabble]

even tthough the solo player still have to put in 2x the time investment for same result... atleast its not 3x or 5x the time if the xp is split)

I agree with you, but I think that we're in danger of losing sight of the real problem.

Solo players will always have to grind harder to achieve what team players achieve. There's no way around that and it is therefore irrelevant (unless we are considering bonus xp for solo players!).

The real problem is that the devs are balancing around this artificially boosted progression. Whether they change it, leave it, or make it optional is completely irrelevant so long as they stop balancing around it. It's like putting a cheat into the vanilla game and then assuming that everyone uses it.

 

[OzHawkeye]

I agree with you, but I think that we're in danger of losing sight of the real problem.
Solo players will always have to grind harder to achieve what team players achieve. There's no way around that and it is therefore irrelevant (unless we are considering bonus xp for solo players!).

The real problem is that the devs are balancing around this artificially boosted progression. Whether they change it, leave it, or make it optional is completely irrelevant so long as they stop balancing around it. It's like putting a cheat into the vanilla game and then assuming that everyone uses it.

Well, to be honest, I'm not too concerned about that. I'm playing solo, and have been since about A14 or so. If A17 (or any other Alpha for that matter) feels too "slow" for me, I just edit the progression.xml file to speed it up.

 

[PoppaTot]

Honestly, the only person I actually had in mind was Vic but I figured there were others. I am in no way opposed to any option that will make the game more fun for as many people as possible. Whenever I share my opinion about the way the game should play, I'm talking about vanilla default as I believe it should be but am in no way making a statement that options shouldn't be available for changing that.
If this were my game and I was creating the default version for shared xp between a group of people calling themselves party members I would make it functional only during quests and bloodmoon and only to a distance of 30 meters and only for kill xp.

But after reading how others would like to use the function to equalize the playing field, I would most definitely be in favor of an option to allow xp sharing for all activities and with no range limits.

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[meganoth]

So - how do we persuade the devs to put in a second option alongside the range option:
Party XP Mode: Individual Only / Kill Bonuses / Share All Equally

As far as I can see, between those three options everyone who has expressed an opinion would be happy (except those who might not be able to find a server that uses their preferred settings - but that's a general issue and not really limited to this particular option).

Exactly.

And I think if it really must be just one option switch for this feature, I think most people could get behind an option choosing between "short range kill xp shared without bonus xp" and "long range all xp shared without bonus xp".

 

[Limdood]

Maynard, If you don't play on servers with those settings, then I can't for the life of me understand why you have a problem with them.

It's like you like only plain, unsweetened yogurt, then get mad that flavors and sweetened yogurt exist because it makes it so much easier to eat. YOU'D never eat it that way, so those people who like it that way should lose it....even though you are still perfectly able to find unsweetened yogurt to your heart's content.

I've been going off the assumption that servers with the settings you prefer are extremely rare or hard to find....because honestly, thats the only way your complaints come across as anything but needlessly being a jerk to people who's fun in no way impacts your own.

Also, to comment to another person without double posting:

The real problem is that the devs are balancing around this artificially boosted progression. Whether they change it, leave it, or make it optional is completely irrelevant so long as they stop balancing around it. It's like putting a cheat into the vanilla game and then assuming that everyone uses it.

ummm, don't the devs balance to your gamestage? someone levelling slower with SP progression will be at a lower gamestage than a team of people sharing artificially boosted xp . That means in addition to facing half or less of the zombies (X per person, so the solo player faces X, the team of 2 or 3 faces 2X or 3X), they're also facing easier zombies.

I'm not necessarily in favor of the extra xp out of nowhere (I like it in my specific situation because it means my friend and I get more progression out of our otherwise restricted playtime together, but I CAN understand the gripes about it from other points of view) which leads zombies to award 150% or more xp when applied to groups, but I don't see any evidence of the devs balancing for it or not.

It is clear that they balance to groups as far as base defense goes (generally encouraging single players to find some gimmick for pre-trap base defense, because they can't reliably take down endless zombies before they break down a wall, whereas groups are able to more effectively play the tower defense game the way it seems to be intended)...but I can't see anything that implies balancing progression for groups. In fact the gamestage formula seems specifically to AVOID making solo or group disproportionately harder or easier than each other, and takes into account that even the individual gamestages of group players will be higher.

 

[Vomkat]

They should remove shared XP.

 

[Maynard69]

Maynard, If you don't play on servers with those settings, then I can't for the life of me understand why you have a problem with them..

Its pretty simple. Just because I know that I dont want to participate in an unbalanced and unfair MP game, doesnt mean the average new player will. When they come to realize the silliness of it it wont reflect well on the game, it will cause less players and more bad reviews in the long run. (affecting any game I play possibly) My parpticipation or lack of is irrelevant. The fact still remains the system is unbalanced and nonsensical.

Especially since a good amount of new players will likely start out solo in MP games too.

 

[Maynard69]

I agree with you, but I think that we're in danger of losing sight of the real problem.
Solo players will always have to grind harder to achieve what team players achieve. There's no way around that and it is therefore irrelevant (unless we are considering bonus xp for solo players!).

The real problem is that the devs are balancing around this artificially boosted progression. Whether they change it, leave it, or make it optional is completely irrelevant so long as they stop balancing around it. It's like putting a cheat into the vanilla game and then assuming that everyone uses it.

Oh ya, I know. Its only natural less people = more time and work. That is expected, and should be like that. Just not insurmountable odds like it is now. Being solo and competing with teams (and winning) is one my favorite pastimes in the game so I understand completely.

If they just stop balancing around it, thats great, that will help the solo player in a SOLO game. But the existence of the bonus xp is still a way over the top balance (and exploit) problem for any public server that has it.

 

[Limdood]

Especially since a good amount of new players will likely start out solo in MP games too.

Do you have anything to back this up?

My assumption is that 95% of new players will play solo SINGLE PLAYER until they learn the ropes, or play MP with the friend that introduced them to the game.

You're proposing removing a feature that people CURRENTLY use and enjoy because SOME new people MIGHT get confused or dislike the feature.

 

[Maynard69]

Do you have anything to back this up?
My assumption is that 95% of new players will play solo SINGLE PLAYER until they learn the ropes, or play MP with the friend that introduced them to the game.

You're proposing removing a feature that people CURRENTLY use and enjoy because SOME new people MIGHT get confused or dislike the feature.

You just quoted a side note at the end of my main point. I said "likely". Even if they do start out in SP, does that change what their experience will be when they try MP? no. Your response is barely on topic even. And contains as much conjecture as the the tidbit I added at the end of my main point.

I have never mentioned people getting confused, just point out blatant issues for MP games. Of course people are going to enjoy obvious and large advantage over other players and ez mode progression. I can see why you would defend it. But look back in the thread and see all the people that dont see it that way.

 

[Limdood]

I spelled out exactly how I play. I have no advantage over other players. When I play MP, I play with ONLY one other person. Removing shared xp or shared xp range (not the bonus xp, just the existence of shared xp and the unlimited range) removes the way I play the game...We've tried playing without the shared xp...we both end up playing solo on the same server and lose interest. It's not a stretch to say that without shared xp or unlimited shared xp range, 2 players would stop playing.

Also...love the ad hominem attack on how I must enjoy enjoy it because I need to be better than other players.

as far as being conjecture...yes. yes it was. So was yours. But your conjecture that "a good amount of players will start out solo in MP games" was the sole supporting point of your entire argument. Shared xp does wonders when the ONLY people in the game are in a party. In fact it is integral to progression since things ARE level locked, and trying to split up responsibilities in a party doesn't work if some members lag far enough behind that they can't complete their responsibilities.

You've been saying even the OPTION of it should be removed, when it's existence is integral to certain games - like non-server, friendly MP games where the players want responsibilities shared. All because you're trying to speak for other people, which you aren't. I'm speaking for myself - the shared xp is necessary. Speaking for YOURSELF, you've already said you find plenty of servers with shared xp off. So you're trying to be a voice for theoretical people here, who you ASSUME will both 1) find shared xp intolerable, and 2) somehow NOT be able to find games without shared xp

 

[Maynard69]

I am not here to argue with you. I am not even going to respond further. I am simply stating my views on the problems with the current state of the game relating to this feature. No need to respond to false assumptions and quibble over examples and such. Agree to disagree.

Your post is chocked full "you said this" "you said that" of things I never even said. Try quoting me and responding to my points if you actually want to have a disscussion. You are only muddying the waters atm.

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

Is it fair that the guy that stays behind and builds/repairs the safe place for the night all the time and makes sure everyone has enough food doesn´t get XP, while the guy who is out there but doesn´t do anything but watching others kill gets XP becaues he is near?

It would certainly attract a lot of people who would never play this if all xp would be shared. I know a bunch of people who would play but don´t wanna deal with running zombies, freaking mutants and zombie bears/dogs.

(no mods don´t help, they don´t wann play alone but with the group, so again, mods is also a no)

More players attracted is more customers. No brainer imo.

 

[Viktoriusiii]

What is really interesting to me is that there is at least one person in this thread who both campaigned hard for learn by doing on the premise that improvement should match up with the actual activity done AND is here saying range shouldn't matter on getting free xp from the efforts of someone else. If (as they claimed) the immersion of progressing is directly linked to doing that same activity repetitively then how are they squaring up progressing in an area in which they had not part in experiencing in the first place?

Honestly, the only person I actually had in mind was Vic [...]

This is explained pretty easily.

It is clear to me that shared xp is here to stay. And while I am not (in principle) against sharing a small amount of xp, I also said that anything above 10% shared xp feels like "free xp" or "unearned xp".

BUT if we have to have shared xp, limiting the range feels restrictive. (even more so if the amount of shared xp is this high)

So when I'm playing I constantly think "lets better stay together, otherwise I lose xp!" "damn am I not close enough to him? Am I currently losing xp?"

Restricting the range is fine, IF:

The amount of shared xp is not bigger then... ~5% (numbers may vary and need to be balanced)

OR

The total amount of xp stays (more or less +5% as said) the same, but is actually shared between two players.

As Gazz has correctly stated (oh god I'm agreeing with Gazz, what has the world come to )

You currently get up to x4 times the total xp if your party is big enough (maybe more? whats the limit? haven't tested it).

This means that if a zombie gives 500xp, this group gets 2000xp for one zombie.

THIS IS NOT BALANCED.

But as soon as they are further away from each other, they lose out on 1500xp just because they didn't stay close to each other.

Tl;dr:

That is why I dislike the range.

Either make it so that it doesn't feel like I'm beeing punished for going solo (prefered), or remove the rangelimit.

 

[Psychodabble]

Well, to be honest, I'm not too concerned about that. I'm playing solo, and have been since about A14 or so. If A17 (or any other Alpha for that matter) feels too "slow" for me, I just edit the progression.xml file to speed it up.

Which unlocks a whole new load of issues. Now you're saying that it's okay for players to have to do the balance work to have a game that feels good as a solo player in vanilla. That seems ridiculous to me.

Solo vanilla should be the center of the devs' balance work, IMO.

 

[Jedo]

Fun fact: Board games have a player range (2-5, for example), but often the perfect balance is a specific number in that range (4, for example). You can play with 5 or you can play with 2, but the game often doesn't have the same feel or progression to it. Sometimes, in order to achieve a better balance in those situations, I introduce house rules.

Did the makers of those board games do a bad job making the game?

 

[Psychodabble]

ummm, don't the devs balance to your gamestage? someone levelling slower with SP progression will be at a lower gamestage than a team of people sharing artificially boosted xp . That means in addition to facing half or less of the zombies (X per person, so the solo player faces X, the team of 2 or 3 faces 2X or 3X), they're also facing easier zombies.

I'm not necessarily in favor of the extra xp out of nowhere (I like it in my specific situation because it means my friend and I get more progression out of our otherwise restricted playtime together, but I CAN understand the gripes about it from other points of view) which leads zombies to award 150% or more xp when applied to groups, but I don't see any evidence of the devs balancing for it or not.

It is clear that they balance to groups as far as base defense goes (generally encouraging single players to find some gimmick for pre-trap base defense, because they can't reliably take down endless zombies before they break down a wall, whereas groups are able to more effectively play the tower defense game the way it seems to be intended)...but I can't see anything that implies balancing progression for groups. In fact the gamestage formula seems specifically to AVOID making solo or group disproportionately harder or easier than each other, and takes into account that even the individual gamestages of group players will be higher.

It has nothing to do with gamestage whatsoever. I'm afraid you've missed the point completely.

It's about the static balance elements and design decisions that have been made with this artificially boosted speed of team progression in mind. For example, there was a build without level gates...you could take the skill you wanted as soon as you had the points. That was quickly removed and the cited reason was that multiplayer teams could hit endgame to quickly.

Another example is zombie block damage. As you note yourself, the balance is fine for teams receiving xp bonuses, but solo players need "gimmicks" just to survive. That's a very polite way of saying AI exploits.

The evidence is plain to see when you know where to look. I don't care how you and your friend play, but it's clear to me that the vanilla game should be balanced for solo players...

 

[Limdood]

it's clear to me that the vanilla game should be balanced for solo players...

But...it can't be....for the same reasons there are problems with it being balanced for groups.

I can't agree about the level gates being evidence that the game is balanced for MP. Sure, the MP people will level faster (they probably shouldn't get the bonus xp...I think it should be just shared equally, but for the sake of this argument, lets say they leave the bonus xp in)....but the game isn't really intended to balance for how QUICKLY you progress to each milestone. If it takes the solo player until day 10 to hit level 20, but the group of 3 can hit level 20 on day 5....so what? The game modifies itself to provide an appropriate challenge via gamestage. If the group of 3 is just spending all their time trolling the solo player, then sure it's going to suck, but that isn't a flaw of the system, it's the problem when 3 people decide to harass 1.

I CAN agree about the block damage....I feel the game has really lost something by turning it into an Tower defense/AI cheese game. I don't really agree that the old way was so great though, when you could stand on a scaffold and shoot down at 20 zombies endlessly beating on a steel wall that you knew would take them all night to get through anyways. Problem here is that TFP have painted themselves into a corner. The wild randomness in the zombies you'll get in any given game make traditional tower defense (whittle out the horde, hopefully to nothing, before they reach you, using consistent defenses) difficult, and the fact that pretty much any consistent non-active defense is restricted to the top levels (electric-powered traps) makes it pretty much impossible. The zombie pathing that pushes zombies to swarm any tiny hole they make means the old freestanding fortress bases are out and you HAVE to cheese AI...at least to the point of forcing them to attack a given point of your base. And they can't revert back to the old style because they've committed to not allowing people to bunker up and just...be safe.

All that means they have literally no way to balance for different numbers of players, because the hugely varying number and type of zombies and block damage, combined with the huge variety of block hps means that unless you possess the ability to PREVENT them from hitting blocks completely, you could die at any moment....a team of 3 could get a cop, 2 workers, 2 irradiated, a spider, and 18 normals, and have concrete, and at the same point, a solo player could get 4 workers, a cop, and 3 normals and have flagstone. One hit with the team of 3 does almost nothing, but 1 hit on the solo players base and he's likely got a broken block. Balancing for the solo player leaves the group at NO threat at all...which TFP has decided is "to be avoided at all costs," and they seem to go to any lengths to keep players from passively riding out the horde night.

EDIT: I think settings might be able to be implemented to help the game balance for SP vs. MP....zombie block damage for example. But i don't think that MP and SP can ever be balanced in the SAME GAME at the SAME TIME....as in, 1 server hosting 2 groups of 3, and 2 solo players at once. I also don't think that people who specifically choose to play like that really have a foot to stand on with those complaints though. They're choosing to specifically play solo in a MP setting. It feels like someone putting on the hardest settings and then complaining that the things that changed with difficulty are too hard.

 

[archimp]

Here's another of those, originally described as "desirous of LBD". I'd much prefer something approximating LBD where it works. Not too keen on leaving a trail of wooden clubs for weeks, but seeing that mining skill pop up every now and then was pretty satisfying.. slowly progressing towards the next gated perk in that, awesome. And yes, fun. And, logical.
I have two reasons to be fine with sharing XP with whatever range..

1) Depressed Nihilism. LBD is gone. We have zombie-head-bashing as the only system, so it doesn't get any less immersive if you just grant it daily to everyone. Maybe limit to the people who have actually logged on the server once... (mostly kidding here but the immersiveness part is pretty apt, shared XP ain't worse than learning steel crafting by bashing skulls, or rather, by aggroing three POIs at once, kiting them into a tight ball stacked two high and burning them down with a double molotov)

2) I can't mind about the OPTION of people playing the game however they like - I do have an opinion for the default game in it's current state (make it equal to two solo players intentionally killing zombies round robin, or slight buff from that) but I'm all for having the settings in there.

i have always hated that when playing in party or team. xp is calculated wrong..this is what i mean asian grindfest.. u need kill 2x more mobs to get same speed xp in same time.. this kills friend helping and team play very well.

that person who figured out that exp needs to be split this way. need to be kill. this game makes it right. as i am former diablo 2 player i like this shared exp.

and u miss the word shared, its SHARED so if someone kill something u should get points what it gives. else its KSing if u know what i mean.

but anyway this is all about tastes as u say.