# Reducing XP Earned VS Increasing XP Required

#### Frostorm

##### []D[][]V[][]D aka "Staf00"
So I've played a few RPGs, particularly tacticals, where an actor's XP needed to level up remains constant (e.g. 100xp) as they level up, earning less XP from the same enemy every successive level. This is in contrast to the more traditional method where a particular enemy will grant a constant amount of XP when killed and having the actor's required XP to level up increase over time. I was wondering, what do you guys think of such systems? Which do you prefer? And also, are there any real pros and cons between the two? After all, mathematically speaking, both methods can be tuned to provide the same leveling curve. So is it just a difference of presentation, or is there more to it?

#### ATT_Turan

##### Forewarner of the Black Wind
You are missing another traditional method, wherein both happen - the XP awarded by a given enemy decreases and the amount required to level up increases. Dungeons and Dragons does this, as does some number of video games (it's not really a part of design that matters enough to me to track per game ).

As you pointed out, it doesn't actually matter functionally. Sure, you could say it makes a difference when your XP to level is up to 10,000 and a given enemy has decreased to granting 37 per kill...but is that actually different from 0? Is anyone going to grind 37 XP enough times to get to 10,000 instead of just killing something at a more appropriate level?

It's just like all other aspects of games with numbers. Some people get a kick out of seeing that they dealt 84,213 damage, even if it's the same 20% of the enemy's HP that you get with smaller numbers. Similarly, some people feel a greater sense of achievement from getting the 10,000 XP to level, even if it's the same number of kills that you'd need if your XP is 100 for every level.

Doesn't make any difference, but it should probably match the rest of your game. If you have your HP and other stats within a few hundred, the 100 per level might look better. If you're getting into hundreds and thousands for your stats, a larger XP progression is probably more appropriate.

#### Andar

##### Veteran
There are two points that both of you missed in the discussion of the options so far.

The first point is non-combat experience. Does it exist? How does it scale? If you can gain a lot of XP by quests, or just by finding secrets, then the entire mathematics change - especially as those points are traditionally fixed numbers (always getting n XP for finding a secret treasure) instead of a scaling number.

The second point is the question of mapping, or rather how access to battles is structured.
If you have a linear game structure you can easily scale the enemies with the level the party should have upon reaching that point.
If your game has an open world map where the player can go either to low level areas to grind for points, or risk high level areas for a quick boost, then scaling the enemy XP becomes much more complicated.

In the last case I would strongly advice against a mixed method like ATT_Turan mentioned, because it will make the balancing even more difficult.

##### Realist
there are other unique ways where an actor DONT level, but get stronger
by gear (which I do), and one game I know have this too.

the other methode is intresting (the on used in ManaFinder) that require
an item that let you level up instead, but grinding this item constantly
can get you strong in the beginning.

constant XP earned or XP earned only by quests/tasks is another way
to level your actor to avoid getting strong at the start, but getting stronger
when have too (which you have more control over).

there are more ways of constant exp, lower exp from battles, or increase XP
when level up when required.

the methode best fit for you depends how your game works and the way
you feel most comfortable with.

But every pro has it's cons as well, so sometimes you need to think twice
and wise before taking actions

#### Milennin

##### "With a bang and a boom!"
I'll be handling EXP through the use of a variable that'll work similar like that, where the EXP required to the next level up remains constant, but fighting enemies considered below your level will grant increasingly less EXP. For me, it's more of a way to have better control over levelling up, because I don't like the default system for it. From the player's perspective, I don't see it making all that much of a difference...

#### Frostorm

##### []D[][]V[][]D aka "Staf00"
I've noticed a fair number of Tactical RPG titles use the constant 100xp method. I'm trying to figure out why this is such a trend in this subgenre. Examples include Final Fantasy Tactics, Fae Tactics, & Fell Seal just to name a few. Have you guys noticed this too? I hope I'm not overlooking any obvious reasons for that...

#### Cyberhawk

It's prolly easier to control the flow of Exp.
Fire emblem doesn't let you level up twice off of one enemy. At most you will get 1 level and 99 xp.

### Latest Profile Posts

Playing Aroma Indosiar theme song.
Aroma is an Indonesian TV show about cooking.
Working on a characteeer! (Why is it so hard to color hair?) ;-;
Just finished eventing a couple simple puzzles in RMMV, for my very first game "Sample Quest." Just messing around, throwing things together, and calling it a story XD On a non-RM note, got my hair cut today!
I feel the need to inform everyone on the forums NOT to go with Web Hosting Canada for your hosting needs. It is by far the worst customer service and just overall experience I have ever had with hosting and I am Canadian...
Got another eye surgery monday. Hope I'll recover quick and all's well. A bit tired of surgeries. On a happy note, working on the next chapter of Escalia so hope I can continue soon