I do not understand xp cap's reason

[BelgarionRiva]

Maybe this has already been explained but I'll bring it up anyways.

I do not understand why there is an xp cap in matches, or why lopdo was not happy that there was a thread called "tips for xp farming". Levels are made to be achieved, not in order to prevent people to achieve them. What's the point in even having levels, if you're going to modify the formula every time someone finds a way to grind for fast xp? It seems like a double standard: I'm going to give them levels, but I don't want them to achieve a high level. Lopdo, make 150 levels instead of putting an xp cap. It's like pooping on a party. Since levels change absolutely nothing to your income, why prevent people from having fun?

[Iamhere]

Maybe you should try and see it from someone else's point of view, it's like this "I don't want to get a high level because I got really lucky one long match, I want to get a high level because I played a lot and got good at the game"

[Ratburntro44]

First, the game is built to support infinite (almost) levels. It is based off of an automatic formula for xp to level up, not hard-coded.

Second, I agree xp cap should not exist. It was added, however, because of the existence of gigantic maps after the launch of map editor allowing to easily get tons of xp.

[BelgarionRiva]

Maybe you should try and see it from someone else's point of view, it's like this "I don't want to get a high level because I got really lucky one long match, I want to get a high level because I played a lot and got good at the game"

You do want to get a high level, but you don't want it to be directly proportional to the time you spend playing.
So you're saying you do not want to level unless you grind it out (played a lot). Also, levels are not an indicator of how good you are, they are an indicator of how much you've played, since you get xp even if you're not #1.

First, the game is built to support infinite (almost) levels. It is based off of an automatic formula for xp to level up, not hard-coded.

Second, I agree xp cap should not exist. It was added, however, because of the existence of gigantic maps after the launch of map editor allowing to easily get tons of xp.

Since it supports infinite levels, I don't understand what the problem is with easily getting tons of xp. As I said, instead of capping it, add 150 different icons would take lopdo an hour on photoshop at the most. Getting from lvl 100 to lvl 101 would take a good 10k xp. At some point, any kind of modification to the game would be destroyed by the fact that the levels keep requiring more and more xp. Again, since no actual money is involved, I really do not understand how can anyone come up with a valid argument for an xp cap.

[Robomajor]

I believe Lopdo wants us to really earn our levels instead of us just blowing through. Because higher levels are harder to achieve now, people will have to play more in order to get them. This is good for Lopdo.

Although, your point reminds me of my relationship with typical games and their unit power. I always think "Why would they make everything's attack power in the thousands (i.e. 2000, 4000, 6000) when they could just simplify everything to the tens, or even to the ones place (i.e. 2, 4, 6)?" This has always perplexed me and I see it also perplexes you.

[BelgarionRiva]

2000 instead of 2 adds significance in the eyes of users... I think.

You seem to think that by putting a cap, people earn what they get. How else do you want to earn your levels, than by playing the game? I do not think that it will make people play more, I think that putting a cap actually makes people play less. In this depraved world, we seem to enjoy finding a substitute for life, one where we can achieve seemingly useless things by doing very little. This is one of the reasons video games thrive. If Lopdo adds 150 levels instead of putting a cap, it will make users like me, who like to see "level up" every few days on their screen, play more; and it will change nothing to his motives (whatever they are).

[Robomajor]

Well, it looks like you can get the same amount of exp in a 5 minute game and a hour game. This didn't happen before the exp cap. And because of what I have read...I seem to be more against the exp cap now.

[BelgarionRiva]

Yeah, I'm doing 5 minutes games now, and getting in an hour, the equivalent of playing an hour game without xp cap. Funny innit?

[Joriom]

Why would they make everything's attack power in the thousands (i.e. 2000, 4000, 6000) when they could just simplify everything to the tens, or even to the ones place (i.e. 2, 4, 6)?

I. If your base attack is 6000, you have 23% attack bonus, your enemies armor reduces 7% damage and he got ability that reduces one third of the damage you've got:
6000 * 123 / 100 = 7380
7380 * 93 / 100 = 6863 (actual result: 6863,4)
6863 / 3 = 2287 (actual result: 2287,666[7])

II. With same "stats" and base of 6 you get:
6 * 1.23 = 7.38
7.38 * 0.93 = 6.8634
6,8634 / 3 = 2,2878

In example II we need to play with "floating point numbers" which are handled by computers slower, imprecisely and can not be relied on. Check this point from wikipedia article about floaing point numbers for more informations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point#Accuracy_problems

The fact that floating-point numbers cannot precisely represent all real numbers, and that floating-point operations cannot precisely represent true arithmetic operations, leads to many surprising situations.
For example, the non-representability of 0.1 and 0.01 (in binary) means that the result of attempting to square 0.1 is neither 0.01 nor the representable number closest to it.

In example I we can stick to "integer" numbers with some minor rounding (computer won't even bother calculation the fractional part if we tell him to do so) which in most cases will be faster, more reliable, take less space in memory and ofc it looks better when you hit 10k It might not mean much for one player but in case of servers handling tens or hundreds of thousands such calculations its a significant change of performance.

Which does not change the fact that this post seems to be out of the topic as we don't have such situations with lvls.

If you'd ask me, I would remove exp cap and let people get levels as high as they want but (!) if Lopdo is afraid of creating new "logos" I have idea for that as well. Why not make them depend not on lvl, but on place in ranking? Best player gets the logo for current 54 lvl, two next players get 53 lvl logo, three next players get 52 lvl logo, etc. Last 10% of (active) players get 1 lvl logo, next 5% get 2 lvl logo, etc.

Edit (important):
Atm the fastest way of "exping" yelds 6.8 - 8.2 exp per minute. With premium its around 15exp/m, 900exp/h or 21,6k exp/day. The problem is that I've tested it and never hit the "cap" (yes, I'm sure of that, numbers were close to 1000 but not divisible by five - as Lopdo stared: "cap is multiplicity of five"). Thats VERY sad, cause cap reduces exp for fair players and cheaters can still go around it. Artificially increasing cap is possible as well. Oh, and its gives 5 shards/minutes as well!

[BelgarionRiva]

If you'd ask me, I would remove exp cap and let people get levels as high as they want but (!) if Lopdo is afraid of creating new "logos" I have idea for that as well. Why not make them depend not on lvl, but on place in ranking? Best player gets the logo for current 54 lvl, two next players get 53 lvl logo, three next players get 52 lvl logo, etc. Last 10% of (active) players get 1 lvl logo, next 5% get 2 lvl logo, etc.

I like that. ^

EDIT: It might piss off people that achieved high level. How about adding another classification system of icons based on that idea?