[Opinions] AoS Experience

In your opinion, which one of the following works best for an AoS type map?
If you have other options you wish to add to the list, post it.


1) Normal experience system.
:: You get experience by killing creeps and more for killing heroes. If you die/travel, you may potentially fall behind in levels.

2) Constant experience system.
:: You get no experience whatsoever from creeps and heroes, instead, you are given experience at regular intervals (perhaps decreasing as you level higher), even if you are dead.

3) Max level.
:: You start off at max level.


Things to think about:

:: What does level difference add to the game except to destroy the gaming experience for the player who died? Punishments shouldn’t ruin the game for the person (lower leveled heroes means dying more and more sometimes), it should make the game harder for the team in general, but still fun. Ex. Revival time. The team is damaged by the loss of a player, but the player himself isn’t damaged, and so can still keep up with the game once he is back.

:: (Something I picked up from other threads) Some people enjoy “building” heroes, so starting off at max level or getting nothing at all from creeps and hero kills (besides gold) may ruin it for them.

:: http://www.thehelper.net/forums/showthread.php?t=62214&highlight=constant << Thread on The Helper discussing constant experience system. From a long time ago.

The first, ofcourse. The second might as well not be there as it is a constant factor that has no real impact on the gameplay, same goes for the second one. Both options cant even really be seen as experience, as it is not gained by actions.

...Moron.

You should make a Morrowind-esque experience system; attack more, increase attack damage. Defend more, get more hit-points. That would mean rubbish players become able to take more damage than good ones, and it balances out?

Or, option 4:

Start at max level, lose two levels each time you die, and regain experience rapidly.

Then wheres the skill in or action in that? It's just temporary punishment for dieing.

I think it really depends on the type of game you want to make. Do you want everyone to start out maxed and then punish those who suck by lowering their level? Do you want everyone to start out even but then let certain more experienced players pull ahead? Do you want everyone to be even at all points in the game?

If you know what you want, then this sort of system should be super easy to design. If you don't know what you want... Well you might want to fix that before making a map. :p

The problem with the first method is that most of the time, the stronger players get stronger, and the weaker players get weaker, and they can never catch up.

For instance you and the opposing hero are both level 4. The opposing hero pwns you. He gains a level. By the time you revive and run back to your lane, he's level 6. Because he already has his ultimate, he pwns you again. Ect... ect...

The problem with the normal system is that it becomes way more of a "get experience" game than a strategy game. You rush into your lane at the beginning of the game to soak up the experience, you try never to leave the lane so you won't be underleveled, you hide behind your creeps so you won't die and be underleveled...

That's why some people quit if they die once or twice - there's simply no way to catch up, because if somebody is a higher level than you, they will have better stats, they will have better abilities, and so they will have a better chance.

Keeping all the players at an even level means that instead of damaging the player, dying damages the team, and so no one player will fall behind, but the team may be harmed by the fact that they're one hero short for a period of time.

The only reason the constantly-giving-experience option is there is because it's trying to keep the concept of building, while still having them all evenly leveled.

But then again, giving out experience at the same rate to everybody is kind of pointless isn't it? So why not just make them all max leveled and spare yourself the trouble?


Conclusion: I don't know what type of game I want to make.


Edit: A system like Super Smash Bros would be great. The more % you have the easier you are to knock out, but even if you have 250%, you can still blast away somebody with 30%. Sort of like somebody who's level 1 still has a chance to beat a level 6. Except it wouldn't work in an AoS, you can't dodge, manuever etc...

Edited edit: Maybe I should just spare myself all this hypothesising and calculating and just go with the usual method. (Just another AoS type map)

Edited edited edit: Look at it this way - when you play a map, aren't you looking for a challenge rather than pure pwnage because the other team is underleveled and full of newbies? Meaning you would play against a team of even skill, so you would all be about the same level anyways right?

The problem is the question: It is retarded.

The moment you start using systrems like max level or equal "xp" gain, you're not talking about experience anymore. The idea of experience is that it is a recource gained by your actions, verry much like gold, and you can spent this recource to upgrade your character both passive and actively.

You can try a whole bunch of diffrent methods to "equal shit out" but the base line is just that a good payer will know how to get experience the fastest, therefore gain an advantage, and demolish other players. Thats the whole idea. Its what keeps playing with one unit interesting becouse you have a whole other recource to manage (aside from just gold or whatever).

If you take that factor away you'll need to give players something else to reward them and keep gameplay exciting. You could for example use things like temporary powerups, more units to control, more spells to cast (but i'd prefer more units).

Yeah, I was pondering over it later on and decided that it would be best to just keep the normal way. There are some things that are unsolvable. Though, if I were to reduce travel time and revival time enough, and give the players less reason to leave their lanes, in addition to the "leveling curve", it should make it less of a problem, and also keep the action going.

I've considered more controllable units as well, as well as mercenary waves like in Desert of Exile, still haven't decided which one yet. The game is supposed to be focused on heroes, but additional units would add some more depth into strategy and keep the player busy.

That's another story however.

You can still keep the general war3 experience system but merely alter the way experience is:
- gained/rewarded
- distributed/spread out

Normally in war3 its gained by an allied unit killing an enemy unit & its distributed either globally or within about a 1000 AoE.
The same can be said with the bounties/economy reward mechanics.

If you just play around with these, you can add a cool mechanic in an AoS yet still keep the war3'is atmosphere.

If that's the case, then I would argue that you've got more important things to worry about currently than what type of experience system to use in the map.

This entirely depends on if you want to create a game of chess, a game of RISK, a game of Life, or whatever. Again, you need to know what you want to make before you can really effectively make a decision on it.

1. Don't make an AoS, make a map.
2. If you don't like experience, don't use it, but don't ever make heroes start with max power, make them start with something average so they could easily take 4 units but not 5, or something like that.

Experience is a system that allows you to leave the game 35 minutes before it ends so you know you are gonna lose anyways, because of this it is a feature since it saves you time.