Talk:Experience

/Archive

XP cap
When I last farmed trolls for skill points I got 512xp/troll, is this a recent update or did the anon not test enough? &mdash; Skuld  13:30, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
 * "before scroll" perhaps? I really don't know. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 14:44, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

XP Miscellaneous
When I kill level 0 mobs in Pre-Searing Ascalon with a level 1 character, I get only 25xp/kill instead of 80, 20 instead of 64 at level 2, 10 instead of 32 at level 4 and 5 instead of 16 at level 5, so it seems level 0 mobs are a special case. I have also noted that bosses give double xp. &mdash;Khudzlin 08:38, 6 July 2006 (GMT)


 * That should be added. It should also be added that the cap is applied BEFORE the doubleing of xp. If you kill a level 28 boss with a level 20 character you'll get 464 xp. --[[Image:Warrior's_Endurance.jpg|18px]] numma_cway 07:34, 26 November 2006 (CST)

Changes
The old table was ripped directly from a page on GWO (it even provided a link), though that page is now gone and the data/table is on their wiki. So, I redid the table. I ended up removing the stuff you get at each level, since this is an article about experience points. I linked character development near the top, which doesn't exist yet, as somewhere to put the general info about everything involved in leveling. Maybe it could be thrown into character level instead. I'll think about it some more first. --Fyren 12:58, 6 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Your new table is incorrect. The virtual levels past 20 don't all cost 15K experience.  They still follow the usual experience requirement progression (add 600 each time), and are simply capped at 15K.  The old table reflected this. --adeyke 13:08, 6 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Changed. --Fyren 13:21, 6 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I think it makes sense that when a correction is suggested and corrected, that the discussion about it also be removed. - OYE

Formula
The formula lacks the following conditions: (Almost) Complete formula should look like this ('pasteable' into your favorite spreadsheet program): MIN(MAX((100 + 4*SIGN(o - y) + 16*(o - y)),0)/a,280) Complete formula should include XP gains against lvl0 creatures. If anyone can figure it out, please update this formula. --  n 00kie  (Ping) 07:06, 3 November 2006 (CST)
 * no negative xp
 * no more than 280 xp

Level 0 mobs give MIN(30-5*pl,0)/a, where pl is player's level (they give 25 XP to a level 1 player, 20 to a level 2, 15 to a level 3, 10 to a level 4, 5 to a level 5 and nothing to a level 6+). Also, XP awarded is rounded to the nearest integer after party division, with half-points rounded down (an enemy with the same level gives 12 XP to a player in a party of 8, not 13). Khudzlin 23:03, 27 November 2006 (CST)

Thanks. I guess this is it then: IF(o=0,ROUND(MAX(30 - 5*y,0)/a,0),ROUND(MIN(MAX((100 + 4*SIGN(o - y) + 16*(o - y)),0)/a,280),0)) --  n 00kie  (Ping) 10:17, 6 December 2006 (CST)

I'm not into spreadsheet formulas, especially ones that complicated (better split the formulas for more clarity), but you're probably right, except the rounding used by GW is non-standard (standard rounding rounds .5 up, while GW rounds .5 down) and to be absolutely complete, you'd have to add something to take into account the fact that XP awarded by bosses is doubled between the capping and the rounding, which would yield IF(o=0,ROUND(MAX(30 - 5*y,0)/a,0),ROUND(MIN(IF(boss,2,1)*MAX((100 + 4*SIGN(o - y) + 16*(o - y)),0)/a,280),0)) and the rounding problem still isn't solved. --Khudzlin 13:48, 8 December 2006 (CST)


 * Here's a C++ version of that equation, as well.

if (en_level == 0) {   exp = ((30 - (5 * char_level)) / party_size) * multiplier; exp = round(exp, 0); } else {   exp = ((100 + (4*sin(en_level - char_level)) + (16*(en_level - char_level))) / party_size) * multiplier; exp = round(exp, 0); }

For those to whom it makes more sense in this form. ^_^ RavynousHunter 15:50, 13 February 2007 (CST)

additional multiplicators, capped at x7
I've added the remaining multiplicators beyond the Boss factor. When testing, I have concluded that the total multiplication bonus from boss flag, insight scroll, and appropriate bounty can not be larger than 7, whereas the theoretical maximum is currently 12: times 2 from boss, times 2 from bounty, times 3 from the rare berserker scroll. I tested on Exuro Flatus with the N/Mo boss farmer build. Exuro is a level 28 boss and there is a Titan bounty just outside the portal, resulting in a very respectable 232*2*2 = 928 XP a pop without a scroll. However, when I added a rare Berserker scroll (x3) I was hoping for 928*3 = 2784 XP; however, it resulted in "only" 1624 = 232 * 7 XP. A common berserker scroll (x2) gave me 1624 as well, instead of 232*8 = 1856 XP. A common Adventurer's scroll (x1.5) gave me the expected 232*2*2*1.5 = 1392 XP --RolandOfGilead 23:53, 14 January 2007 (CST)
 * Is this from the first kill in the zone? I'm noticing a problem with farming Sunspear Promotion points, while trying for max experience, in the Forum Highlands.  I leave from Kodash Bazaar, get the bounty for Skree and Heket, then go out to the big plain to the west, where they are fighting.  Just before the first kill, I use an experience scroll.  The first kill grants the correct experience, but all subsequent kills are capped at 74 XP.  With a Scroll of Hero%27s Insight scroll, and a full party of 8, I should get 84 XP for a 24th level monster.  With Scroll of Slayer%27s Insight, it should be 105.  Again, the first kill in the zone gives the proper XP, but all others after that cap at 74 XP.  Any thoughts? 21:05, 04 March 2007 (CST)

I ran a similar test on a normal level 28 mob. Killing it gave the expected 232xp. A +200% bounty increased it to 464xp. A +175% scroll only increased it to 812xp (350% instead of 375%). A 200% scroll also got me 812xp. It seems scrolls > 150% aren't worth using with bounties. This fits with the test above if the boss xp bonus is counted separately.

all multipliers applied before rounding?
I've noticed that the Boss factor seems to be applied before rounding, as noted (bosses regularly award odd XP), but the bounty factor seems to be applied after rounding (equal level mobs with bounty in a party of 8 give only 24 XP instead of the expected 25). I don't know about the scroll factor. --Khudzlin 18:18, 18 January 2007 (CST)

After a bit of testing, it appears that all multipliers are not applied before rounding: only the &times;2 for bosses is applied before rounding, while multipliers from scrolls and bounties are applied after rounding (which makes a second rounding necessary in some cases). For instance, killing an equal level mob in a party of 8 gives 12XP (12.5 before rounding) without any multiplier; with an adventurer's scroll (&times;1.5), it gives 18XP (while 12.5&times;1.5=18.75 which would round to 19) and with a bounty (&times;2), it gives 24XP (while 12.5&times;2=25). On the other hand, killing a boss (&times;2) occasionally gives odd XP, which could not happen if the XP was doubled after the rounding. &mdash;Khudzlin 16:15, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Discovered quite funny fact
If you have exactly half the XP you need for level 20 (means 70300), you are at level 13,73, which is very close to the "leet" aspect. What do you think about it?
 * Coincidence. Value is not even 1337 it's 1373. It's just random. --  n 00kie  (Ping) 12:32, 20 January 2007 (CST)
 * Sure coincidence, but i found it quite funny to see, as i calculated^^ 89.14.243.219 13:36, 20 January 2007 (CST)
 * :) --  n 00kie  (Ping) 20:33, 20 January 2007 (CST)

weird equation
whats with the other half of the equation? it says [100+/-4+/-16 x sgn(o-y)+16(o-y)]/a. in the example, it leaves out the +16(o-y) bit. is that a misprint in the equation? also, wat does sgn mean?
 * It's not left out of the equation at all. Look carefully: I think you're seeing a '16' where there isn't one. "sgn" is the "sign function". (here is a quick and dirty explanation of what it is.)  It's what's making it +4 or -4 in the two examples.  Then there's your 16(o-y).  &mdash; [[Image:Fin_sig.gif|User:Kyrasantae]] kyrasantae   20:57, 23 January 2007 (CST)

The equation does seem oddly complex, why would they need to use the sine function anyway? I'm sure theres a far simpler equation they couldve used than that monstrosity. PS: The 'sgn' for the sine function looks wierd to me, which is prolly why he didnt get it at first. I think they should alter it to say 'sin' instead of 'sgn', easier to tell what it is, 'cause that one had me confused there for a minute, too. RavynousHunter 15:41, 13 February 2007 (CST)

The sign function has nothing to do with trigonometry: it tells wether its argument is positive, negative or zero. --Khudzlin 02:36, 6 March 2007 (CST)


 * Why do they have math functions with two identical names? That just makes things all the more confusing!! --RavynousHunter 17:08, 4 April 2007 (CST)


 * They don't. The trig function is sine.  --Fyren 19:17, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Who Gets Experience
Cannot find it: how do you qualify for Experience for a kill? Its certainly if the foe aggroed you, but what about monks staying back from the battle? Will a bonder get experience if he doesn't actually heal? Oye 00:17, 3 February 2007 (CST)


 * Technically, he would. However, you have to stay within aggro range of the foe when it dies, otherwise you dont get any XP at all.  RavynousHunter 15:36, 13 February 2007 (CST)

Calculating virtual level
''An easy way to determine your current virtual level is use the following formula:

((XP - 182,600)/15,000)+23

Where XP is your current experience''

I must say, I disaggree with this. This calculates your level if it only took 15k xp to level for every level past 23. Therefore this goes way off the curve of levels 1-20. I propose using this formula: LVL = -11/6 + 1/2(√(3(xp)+7225)/225)

Reason being, is that calculates what your level would be if anet removed the level cap, and kept the same xp curve all they way up. here's an example of the formula in-use.

EXAMPLE of Formula! (xp = 9632625)

LVL = -11/6 + 1/2(√(3(xp)+7225)/225)

LVL = -11/6 + 1/2(√(3(9632625)+7225)/225)

LVL = -11/6 + 1/2(√(28897875)+7225)/225)

LVL = -11/6 + 1/2(√(28905100)/225)

LVL = -11/6 + 1/2(√(128467.111111) *don't round off yet*

LVL = -11/6 + 1/2(358.423089533)

LVL = -11/6 + 178.211544766 *always round down*

LVL = 177.378211433

LVL = 177

Note: This is NOT my formula, it was posted by Zoaka Ewon on gameamp, at about the same time I finished a small script to calculate the same thing.

Anyway, hopefully others will see this the same way I do, the correct way of finding your "true level". --Mwpeck 23:11, 25 February 2007 (CST)
 * What's the point of using a formula that is no longer relevant due to a restriction placed by ArenaNet? Since you level up every 15k experience after 'virtual level 23', your virtual level is still the same as the formula presented in the article. Anything else is wrong or convoluted. ---220.233.103.77 23:19, 25 February 2007 (CST)
 * The point of it is the formula for the "virtual level" is not acurate. lets say you were level 5, you then reach level 6...is it going to take the same xp to reach level 7 as it did from 5 to 6? No. yes you level up every 15k xp, but thats not how often you would level up if the cap was higher than 20. the current forumula is more like a skill-point level, not virtual level. --Mwpeck 23:26, 25 February 2007 (CST)
 * The problem wih your argument relates to an aspect that no longer exists (re no experience cap on level ups after 20). IIRC, GuildWiki attempts to document the current state of the game, and not things that previously existed, but no longer are. Correct me if I'm wrong on that point. --220.233.103.77 23:33, 25 February 2007 (CST)
 * Was there ever a time where there was no xp cap beyond lvl 20? The way you talk, it sounds like there was, and I cant recall GW having no xp cap on lvl ups beyond 20. It can also be said that there is no way to calculate your "virtual level"(according to your method of thinking) as the current state of the game has a cap on lvl ups past 20(23 to be exact), which is a cap so you can get skillpoints more easily. Think of it, if they kept the level curve even with the skill point curve, those with over 300 skillpoints, wouldnt even have 200.(excluding other sources of skill points)


 * That being said, the current formula is a way of calculating the skillpoints you have aquired through xp, whereas the formula I provided, calculates what your virtual level would be. --Mwpeck 23:51, 25 February 2007 (CST)
 * Yes, there was a time when there was NO cap, so the experience requirement to level up kept increasing. This was changed in June 2005 to a limit of 20,000 experience. This was later changed in September 2005 to 15,000 xp. One thing I find strange with your definition is that skill points can be gained from other sources, so you can't use either formula to calculate your skill point total. In addition, skill points are gained as a result of leveling up, which is why I believe that the gaining of a level and a skill point is synonymous and therefore (why I believe) the current formula is correct in terms of virtual level. --220.233.103.77 00:54, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * See. the formula currently on wiki, calculates how many times you "leveled up", therefore thats how many skillpoints you would have(past 23). And again, excluding other sources. The reason I say the current one is wrong, is because..What if, GW didnt have a level cap of 20......the formula I posted will figure out what level you would be if they went above 20. Whereas the current one, is completly wrong, as it wouldnt be only 15k xp per level past 23. --Mwpeck 10:13, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * The two relevant points people have covered. The game doesn't work like your forumula.  What we have does exactly what it says it does: it counts levels after 23.  I can't figure out what you're trying to argue or why the article should be changed.  --Fyren 13:52, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * All i'm saying, is the formula I noted above, gives you your level if GW didnt have a level cap of 20. Its that simple....nothing i'm trying to argue, I was just wondering if this should be in the article as well....From what I can tell, even though what I said is correct, you are trying to say its wrong. It is not wrong, your just not seeing what i'm just trying to show. To correctly count levels after level 23, you cannot base the levels on being 15k xp per level. It doesnt to what it says it does....it counts skills, not level.--Mwpeck 14:26, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * Your formula isn't wrong, but it is based something which has no basis in the game, so we should not include it in the article. Someone might find it interesting, but it would only confuse most users. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * Thank you, thats the kind of replies I was hoping to see in this.....ones that have a positive image while still being able to disagree. I fully understand why the other formula is there, I was just hoping to start some talk about a more accurate way of finding your level. That being said, I guess this formula will only be found if someone takes a look at the discussion page. --Mwpeck 18:59, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * Um this formula I just created in 30 seconds actually works...> (EXP-140,600)/13,460, its easier too.[[Image:Pogsigv2.jpg]] 19:05, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * Mwpeck: A lot of users also scroll through the talk pages to find information like this. Don't worry. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * That formula does not do the same as the one I posted, PoG. Just try it with the example xp i used above. --Mwpeck 20:29, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * Anyway, that formula is accurate (ie reflects what the game actually does) when XP < 197,600, while (XP-182,600)/15,000+23 is accurate for XP >= 182,600.

XP for levels 21 and 22
Some people changed this article to indicate that a character needs something other than 15k XP to move from level 20 onwards for the first few skill skill points. With weird numbers inserted there.

I removed all those rows. I am assuming that once you get to level 20, you need a constant and fixed number (15k?) to get to the next level and only that number. Not a special number for 20 to 21 then another for 21 to 22 then a different number for the rest.

If anyone wishes to challenge this, they need to post screen shots. I tend to put more stock in what ANet says. Feel free to point us to any threads on Guru/... about this. Thanks --Karlos 03:51, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Image:13400to21.jpg  &mdash;  n00kie  (ping) 08:12, 12 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I think the version before Terra touched it is correct, but it's been a long time since I've PvE'd. People have said in the past that 20 to 21 isn't 15k, just that the cap is 15k.  --Fyren 04:19, 12 March 2007 (CDT)


 * As I am working hard to get the Legendary Survivor title (and rerolling my char every time she dies), I know for a fact that XP needed for levels 21 and 22 is not 15k, but 14k and 14,600 respectively. So XP needed to level caps out at 15k, but the cap isn't reached until level 23. In the future, please abstain to edit without verifying your information, Terra. As for XP needed for the Survivor titles, it corresponds to an exact level only for the 1st tier; the next 2 tiers are achieved exactly 100 XP before level 50 and 100, respectively.&mdash;Khudzlin 16:49, 12 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Khudzlin is correct. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I would appreciate screen shots with the actual exact numbers. No offense to anyone. This is just for future references. I would like us to get it right and not have to go back again. --Karlos 21:28, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Commentary on formula moved to talk page

 * ((XP - 140,600) / 15,000) + 20 is false because the level 50 is 587,500 xp ( look at the survivor title ).

Also, the level 21 is 152,500 xp and with the formula : ((587,500 - 152,500)/15000) + 21 = 50, not ((587,500 - 140,600)/15000) + 20 = 49.999. Moreover, at level 100 the experience is 1,337,500 ( look at the survivor title) and at level 101 the experience is 1,352,600. So the formula changes : For level > 101, ((Xp - 1,352,600)/15000) + 101. It's check. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.244.116.148 (talk • contribs) 18:06, March 12, 2007 (CST).

Virtual Level formula
Now that all ambiguities about the virtual level formula have been removed, can we please have it back on the page? It's hardly convenient for those who want to calculate their virtual level to have to wade through the various false and unrelated formulae of this talk page. Quizer 21:22, 27 May 2007 (CDT)