Me: There are numerous bug cases for reviewing monster experience.I did not have a response to this question, but the question has been on my mind for the past couple of days. A brief sampling of bug cases revealed that many of the experience-related complaints read thusly:
OtherGM: Compared to what?
Me (confused): I don't understand. The complaint is that some monsters are too hard for their experience payouts.
OtherGM: If the complaint is that a monster is too hard and its experience is too low, then there must be some sort of comparison to a monster that is likewise in difficulty but with a good experience payout, right?
Ironwood giants have one of the worst, if not the worst exp to difficulty ratio; needs a boost.And now I understand OtherGM's question: the ironwood giant gives poor experience for its difficulty – compared to what? What other monsters are out there that are just as tough as the ironwood giant but give more reasonable experience?
I think that if players were to cite an example for comparison, then that would help the GMs a lot.
Posts
There's not really a monster that compares to the Ironwood giant. Any monster statistically similar has another ability, like throwing small rocks, etc. and should be worth more because of it.
ReplyDeleteThere are lots of good examples of monsters who don't have enough experience to warrant the difficulty in many areas, but I think the new Ash monsters are most noticable. The barrens ferals for example are really low exp for their substantial difficulty. I think you could compare their danger to that of a full grown Haremau, if not potentially more because they tend to travel in packs and feral all over the place. Still, they give entire experience levels lower experience than Haremau.
Tree Giant Wights are also in the barrens and despite being formidable high-damage tanks give returns similar to a young sasquatch - a far weaker adversary.
Another good example is the Darshak Ancient Liche. Which is nearly as powerful as the Unique Name Blueskull but provides experience payouts that are 2 complete levels lower on average. Darshak Slave Masters are also 2 levels lower than what they should be, and are also similarly strong.
I haven't experienced it much first-hand, but I am told constantly about how difficult things are in the wetlands but give low experience. Meanwhile some Lyfelidae during daylight provide similar difficulty but offer entire levels greater experience.
The new Mushroom hut seems to give appreciable experience for the difficulty from what I hear. People love going there in effect. If it gave wetlands-grade returns, they wouldn't.
While the area and monster design adds a lot to the fun, so does giving people incentive to bother in the first place. It's really hard to justify going to Ash barrens, wetlands, or areas like TGBG2 because they are dangerous and/or full of angst without giving you recompense for your trouble.
---
Anyway, that's on the top of my head, and consulting with a few friends. If you need more I can probably research it more in-depth.
Darshak Slave Masters are also 2 levels lower than what they should be
ReplyDeleteI do not understand what this means. Could you elaborate?
«Tree Giant Wights are also in the barrens and despite being formidable high-damage tanks give returns similar to a young sasquatch - a far weaker adversary.»
ReplyDeleteIf you're talking about the giant trees with the coolest falling sound ever, that is largely untrue… They return much better exp that young sas, more like AMS (I slaughter every single sas, and get kills on ams/those trees, at least the last time I had the chance to hit one)
I do not understand what this means. Could you elaborate?
ReplyDeleteone would asume the level Darshak.
@ Yappy
ReplyDeleteLevels meaning full msg level. If someone starts slaughtering something someone else kills, that would be 2 levels below. I understand dispatch is a relatively small level compared to kill, but that's how I meant it anyway.
@ Gremlins
It's possible I'm wrong. I got that information from someone else. Everyone I talk to says it's pretty bad, though.
I can't comment on IGs, but I think most people feel shrooms is well balanced and LP/Wetlands nearly as good, when it comes to exp vs risk+difficulty.
ReplyDeleteAnd reading back, I'm not sure why Dai is saying the opposite about wetlands, but maybe it has changed since I started hunting there. I can now hit all the creatures in Wetlands reliably, and they are all still vanqs for me; it's great. :) --We'll se how long that lasts!
ReplyDeleteWell being able to hit something and vanquish it isn't an indicator of if a monster's payout is sensible. Being able to kill it is.
ReplyDeleteIf you can "solo" something and vanquish and it's an easy fight, the payout is probably too high.
If you can barely take something on while incurring severe damage to yourself (all while training and fighting effectively), and it's a dispatch, the payout is way too low.
@Eirian: I suspect that you hunt wetlands with a brick. Ask your brick about the luck hits rate and darkus of most critters there. In my opinion, it's the only reason the experience relative to the risk, is not as good as one would expect, specially in comparison with shrooms.
ReplyDelete@Daimoth: I should probably do more tests, but the tree on Ash is probably much easier than an AMS for a comparable experience reward. Main difference there would be the environment: Usually these trees are not found by themselves, while AMS are. As much as I agree for the ferals in barrens, I would not say the trees are really an issue there (they don't seem to have much more than large histia, definitively less darkus and atkus than AMS as well and likely less defense, again their main difficulty besides their histia is that they are found in the middle of other critters)
I can't say I think AMS give sensible experience either, Gremlins. Especially considering their rarity and the fact that they have a very dangerous rock attack. (even by today's standards)
ReplyDeleteThank you, Yappy, for posting this.
ReplyDeleteI bet this happens all the time behind the scenes - GMs don't know exactly what the bug means, or they wish players would give more information so they could do something about it. Except then the GMs never before have actually *said* anything to the players, meaning that certain things just never got fixed and players never knew why.
If GMs gave more feedback like this, I bet there would be a lot less tension between GMs and players.
Thanks!
@Gremins yes, I often do. :) But I have also hunted wetlands with a group of three or four other 2-4th circle fighters and a healer in which none were able to brick, and we were able to handle, say 2-3 swamp ferals and a water lizard at a time if we were careful, by surrounding and pounding each critter in turn, so it swung out and none of us did.
ReplyDelete--right now, it seems I can take 3-4 bites from a creature, assuming no healing. Thanks to Master Evus, I still have probably 8 swings or more at a go--need to test--so if it was me on one creature, I might well be able to kill it, if I was fast on my feet. :)
But are we talking about risk to an exile soloing, or risk in a group? It seems more reasonable to talk about risk in a group, given how the game is designed.
@Eirian: «But are we talking about risk to an exile soloing, or risk in a group? It seems more reasonable to talk about risk in a group, given how the game is designed.» That is a valid point. 2-3 ferals and a lizard should definitively not be a threat for 3 or 4 fighters of 2-4th circles. But add a buck or two, some manders and crawlers in a nasty backspawn and then you've substantially raised the risk. And such backspawn from what I've seen are not that rare. And then you have the risk of being rooted, depleting your group. Creatures singled out might appear easy or provide a proper level of experience, but you really have to consider their environment and I believe that the experience they give should take that into account. To illustrate that,I can solo 2 hatred in coli. I can barely solo one in CD, or at least it will take me much, much longer :)
ReplyDelete@Daimoth: I do believe that the AMS exp return is actually quite ok. However, while I don't have AMS studied, I still have full family bonus and that might possibly cloud my judgement there, making AMS easier than it was originally planned.
ReplyDelete«specially considering their rarity » : Why would rarity increase the experience granted ?
And again, I think Eirian has a very valid point there. CL was created with group hunting as its focus. And therefore, the experience granted might have to take that into account too.
pp Poor Yappy watching his blog turning into an annex of the Sentinel :) I hope the comments are still appreciated and provide maybe a more controlled and constructive feedback.
ReplyDeleteWell threat to a solo individual correlates to a group. People should be able to solo something for experience, even with difficulty. Obviously it won't be how they hunt the vast majority of the time, but it's a measure of strength relevance.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Darshak Slave Masters are massive threats to the group, because they are dangerous even to Daimoth, the hunt's brick. Still, he often slaughters them. CAn he solo them? Sure, but he often takes a lot of collateral damage that certainly should not warrant it being a slaughter.
Poor Yappy watching his blog turning into an annex of the Sentinel
ReplyDeleteThe day that comments here read like the Sentinel is the day that I disable comments. I don't mind discussions as long everyone remains cordial and respectful (even if this blog is a poor forum for lengthy discussion).
off the top of my head: compare uber shak vs. tepui yorillas stats/xp
ReplyDelete