Buffing XP?

For clarity, you mean if people aren't in the same party?

Generally if you are in a party (which you probably would be if you were tanking, healing, or buffing) the EXP is just evenly split at the end.

As far as I remember from Alpha-1 (this might be bias because this is how it works in the game I play the most) you technically wouldn't need to actually do ANYTHING other than 'be in range'.

Azherae wrote: »

As far as I remember from Alpha-1 (this might be bias because this is how it works in the game I play the most) you technically wouldn't need to actually do ANYTHING other than 'be in range'.

Do hope it stays that way. Codependences push for socialization.

We have not received permission from Sapiverenus to share the quoted post.

That other game I play also has this. In two places.

The first is that you have actual skills that level separately from character, and the character level only determines your current cap for a skill. Rising one 'character level' does NOTHING for the skills for a new player (additional explanation if you need it).

It also has a separate mode where you did get EXP just for 'doing things' moreso than for defeating enemies (because of what that mode is for, War Campaign simulation).

People cheesed it so hard almost immediately that despite about 4 efforts to fix it, they had to simply disallow it for most of the things and make it 'flat' so that you didn't get the skill points you normally get (described above) AND you didn't get exp for 'on use' of certain other things.

I do not believe this can work well enough, and they really tried. Perhaps for a more simplistic game type with constant reworks and patches, but while you're doing that, players who figured out how to get ahead of your patches either have to be nerfed back, or 'got ahead of others while you were fiddling with it'.

We have not received permission from Sapiverenus to share the quoted post.

Just for my clarity, you're saying that all competent developers should be able to out-think and predict all players?

Is this by definition? Like 'anyone who can't counts as incompetent'?

We have not received permission from Sapiverenus to share the quoted post.

Ok thanks, I hope it's okay if I take that as an emphatic 'yes'.