Talk:Experience

Could someone who knows the wiki math stuff clean up that ugly formula? Thanks! --Kathryn Maulhammer 16:39, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)

I don't think this wiki has the math feature enabled. 20:54, 24 Jun 2005 (EST)

No, it doesn't seem to. What should be done about the formula, then? --Kathryn Maulhammer 15:00, 25 Jun 2005 (EST)

I did the formula in the Wikipedia sandbox and saved the image. 21:18, 25 Jun 2005 (EST)

Equation png isn't accurate
The picture displays the exp points as being divided by number of "allies". However, since there is an in-game term for allies which diff from party members, and I'm fairly certain Prince Rurik doesn't split exp with you (either exp is his, or exp is your party's), the equation in the picture is wrong.

And if I were wrong and the image was correct,then the bullet point summary below is wrong. -PanSola 01:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello?


 * Bump* -PanSola 08:48, 12 February 2006 (CST)


 * You are correct. Fell free to fix it. --Karlos 13:14, 12 February 2006 (CST)
 * I don't know how to use the wikimath stuff to produce picture stuff... -PanSola 14:07, 12 February 2006 (CST)
 * It's not enabled on this wiki, I believe. That image was produced on wikipedia's sandbox then saved.--Ante 10:13, 13 February 2006 (CST)

What's the maximum?
first of all, does it really exist? Even if the exact formula isn't know, I'd like to have info posted on the max for a few levels. -PanSola 11:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. The maximum is worked out by substituting the values a=1 and o=30 into the formula. Kidburla 02:40, 15 February 2006 (CST)
 * Actually o=31 is the correct value to subst as Glint is the highest-level opponent at level 31... Kidburla 05:44, 17 February 2006 (CST)
 * Ok there. now Who's gonna solo kill her at level 1 to prove it?? ;] 19:51, 17 February 2006 (CST)
 * I remember a while ago, when one person went past ascension with lvl 2 or 3 just to prove it could be done. Dont think it would work to solo her though ;-) --Xeeron 20:40, 17 February 2006 (CST)
 * Past escension, you have already earned more then 54kxp, which gets you to atleast level 11. 02:21, 18 February 2006 (CST)
 * In other words, it can be very easily claimed, that this is technically not possible, and I say this table is not necessary and irrelevant. 19:54, 17 February 2006 (CST)
 * I agree this table is not necessary and is irrelevant. My question was directed at the anon edit: "There is also a maximum amount of experience a character can get per monster (not including scrolls) that changes per level", which seems to imply there is a hardcoded limit as to how much Exp you can get from one kill, regardless of enemy level (esp since it follows right after the statement that you get more exp from killing hard monsters).  Kidburla's table simply translates the above sentence as "There is a maximum level for monsters", which if it IS what the original sentence's "maximum" was based on, then I say delete the sentence all together. -PanSola 20:09, 17 February 2006 (CST)
 * I agree completely with PanSola. The only way for this to be useful would be to make a matrix, where the rows are player level and the columns are monster levels.  "Maximum Experience" for a given player level is kind of absurd, and not guaranteed to remain the same, since there COULD someday be a new monster with a higher level. As noted, you can't be fighting Glint and be level 1.  ;)  --JoDiamonds 23:08, 17 February 2006 (CST)
 * Right indeed. 02:14, 18 February 2006 (CST)
 * I'm sorry Pan, but I don't understand what the anon edit could have meant if not that there was a "maximum level for monsters". The fact that there are no monsters with higher levels than 31 means automatically that there is a highest XP amount you can get. Also, the amount of XP you have at Dragon's Lair is a lot less than 54k; you could have skipped all the missions except for Sanctum Cay and the Ascension missions themselves, and only got XP for the actual monsters you had to kill to complete these missions, along with the 100+250+250+100+250+500+250+250=1950 XP you get from the compulsory quests in Pre-Searing.
 * I admit that it probably is impossible to get to Glint with level 1, but this simply means that my upper bound for experience in this case is slightly too high.
 * P.S. I was not the anon edit who submitted that sentence in the first place. Kidburla 03:08, 18 February 2006 (CST)
 * I wrote '54kxp' for sanctum cay [1] + 3 desert missions [3] + ascention [50]. it is that simple, or am I wrong? 08:15, 18 February 2006 (CST)
 * The way the anon edit was written, it actually seems to me that IF you manage to kill Glint at Level 1, all by yourself, you will not gain 584 experience, but would get something less, because there is a cap on how much exp you can get from killing one monster. That's why I was asking for a chart or formula on the "maximum" (cap).  I know you weren't (or rather, I assumed you weren't) the anon edit.  If there is a capped maximum, that info would be relavent and useful.  The amount of exp you can get from solo-killing the highest level mob ever found in the game, IMHO, is not useful info. -PanSola 13:09, 18 February 2006 (CST)


 * Why do we have this in the first place, the chart I mean? I feel a better chart would be the amount of experience you get in a team of 8 for lvl. 20 kill, lvl. 24 kill, and lvl. 28 kill. The maximum experience is almost irrelevant,IMHO. --Ravious 04:00, 18 February 2006 (CST)

I have now removed the old anon edit that, after the mention of killing harder mobs gives you more exp, says there is also a maximum of exp per mob you can get (the also implies harder mobs gives more exp isn't the end of the story). I think the chart should go too, but would like to reach a consensus or overwhelming majority before removing that one. -PanSola 13:13, 18 February 2006 (CST)


 * Now the information is not misleading, but imo still irelevant. I'm for taking it off too. 19:23, 18 February 2006 (CST)


 * Lol, perhaps I'm just biased because I spent a while typing stuff into a calculator to get the chart. Maybe it should go. However, perhaps a sentence along the lines of "If you killed a level 31 at level 1 you would get 584, which is therefore the maximum exp you could possibly get from killing a monster (although this situation is very unlikely)"? I think that the maximum exp you could get is "notable". Kidburla 02:03, 20 February 2006 (CST)


 * Disagree. There could easily be a level 50 monster that requires (or expects) a team of size 24 to kill.  This maximum due to max mob level isn't really useful. Sorry d-: -PanSola 02:19, 20 February 2006 (CST)


 * But there aren't any level 50 monsters in the game... Kidburla 04:45, 22 February 2006 (CST)


 * That's because Anet hasn't added MechaGwen yet. It's only a matter of time... &mdash; Stabber 04:49, 22 February 2006 (CST)


 * Still agree with PanSola. The way the game actually functions is merely to compare your level to the monster level, and divide by number of players.  Having a chart that tells you how much XP you get for soloing a monster that is (Your Level + 20) down to (Your Level - 6) might make some sense, because it's general and a little more meaningful.  It feels quite arbitrary to me to show yoru experience vs. a level 31 monster.  A very minor note that the highest level monster in Prophecies is 31 might make sense (but it should really be after a spoiler warning!) --JoDiamonds 06:26, 2 March 2006 (CST)

NPC Kill-napping
I am fairly certain that it's not a fixed 50% of damage that will get the NPC to take away your XP from a kill. If it's in the same battle (you and Rurik hitting a foes at the same time) then it seems to be 50%. But, time is also a factor. i.e. if you engage a beat up foe who was hurt by NPCs and then kill him after some time, you will get the XP. I know this from smite runs where, every run, a bunch of smites will get all riled up and start beating up each other (with the occassional interference of Coldfires). When that happen and we intervene and kill the smites who were almost killed, we usually get no XP, but, if we let them attack us while we take out the Coldfires, then when we get back to them (Smites have no self heal other than Reversal of Fortune) they are still at say 25% or 35% health or whatever. When we kill them then, we get drops and XP. So, time is a factor. --Karlos 04:13, 16 March 2006 (CST)
 * I thought it was just which party (player or NPC) dealt more total damage... -PanSola 05:21, 16 March 2006 (CST)

Will the correct article name please stand up ...
I just noticed that the article Experience points can be reached via re-directs at Experience point and Experience Points. I thought we were avoiding redirects for things link plural and capitalised issues. But, before I started tagging articles for deletion, I wanted to see which the community thinks should be kept, especially because all three articles have other articles linking through them - and because I'm at work and don't have the time at the moment to make all the changes that would be needed. To me, the correct answer is Experience point (singular). Any other opinions on this? --161.88.255.140 12:54, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
 * How about a radical change to Experience, which is a redirect to this page too? This is not important, just delete 2 of those mentioned by 161.88 and put the content in the one which is left or in the Experience article. --Gem [[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 14:22, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I supports go for Experience. -PanSola 15:08, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Thirded for Experience. It's a better article name.  --JoDiamonds 17:03, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Both experience and experience point should be kept, and one should redirect to the other (the latter to the former seems best). Experience Points and experience points should be deleted. &mdash;Tanaric 07:25, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * That all seems perfectly reasonable. Personally, and I know GuildWiki policy is generally harsher/cleaner than this, I'm pretty unconcerned about having "extra" basic redirects around.  I don't care if they are deleted, either, if they are causing maintenance problems.  --JoDiamonds 08:18, 4 May 2006 (CDT)