Main thing I don't like is the near linear party exp gain vs. exponential leveling-up exp gain.
That is, a level 160 + 160 party - splits 60-40. 160+147 splits 61.7-38.3. 160+134 splits 63.5-36.5. 160+108 splits 67.8-32.2. 160+82 splits 72.9-27.1. If you're leeching BF, extend that to 160-30 for 87.4-12.6.
But every 13 levels, exp requirement doubles. At 160-160, they need an equal amount. 160-147 the lower player needs 1/2 the exp to level up. 160-134 they need 1/4. 160-108 they need 1/16. 160-82 they only need 1/64 as much exp to level up. Under level 50 the curve changes, but it's still approximately 1/1000 as much exp to level up.
So if it went
60-40 (same)
80-20 (13 level gap)
90-10 (26 level gap)
97.5-2.5 (52 level gap)
99.375-0.625 (78 level gap)
99.961-0.039 (130 level gap)
This system would result in the leecher gaining the same %/hr at all levels. It makes it easy to calculate the ratio between same % and actual % gained by leeching:
160: 100%
147: 192%
134: 365%
108: 1288%
82: 4336%
30: 32307%
It's not hard to see why leeching is so good. If you're getting 1/4 of the exp with a 160 mage, you still gain 10 times as much exp at level 80 as you would soloing.
I'm not necessarily advocating the identical doubling rate - the curve in player strength isn't the same as the exp curve, and some normal parties would lose out on this scheme. But it should be an exponential fit, rather than a linear one, so the extreme level gaps result in extreme exp penalties on the lower player.
ex. formula fix: define X=(1.04^{level gap}) - note level gap is negative for lower player, so eg. -13 levels = 0.6(lower) to 1.66(higher)
exp(non-kill): 0.8*(Xa/[Xa+Xb])
exp(kill): 0.2+0.8*(Xa/[Xa+Xb])
etc.
For 3+ person parties, define X[i,j] = (1.04^{level gap between player i and j, li-lj})
exp(kill by player j, for player i): 0.8*(X[i,j] / sum_(k=1 to n){X[k, j]})
exp(kill by player i, for player i): 0.2+0.8*...
I think that works out ok
That is, a level 160 + 160 party - splits 60-40. 160+147 splits 61.7-38.3. 160+134 splits 63.5-36.5. 160+108 splits 67.8-32.2. 160+82 splits 72.9-27.1. If you're leeching BF, extend that to 160-30 for 87.4-12.6.
But every 13 levels, exp requirement doubles. At 160-160, they need an equal amount. 160-147 the lower player needs 1/2 the exp to level up. 160-134 they need 1/4. 160-108 they need 1/16. 160-82 they only need 1/64 as much exp to level up. Under level 50 the curve changes, but it's still approximately 1/1000 as much exp to level up.
So if it went
60-40 (same)
80-20 (13 level gap)
90-10 (26 level gap)
97.5-2.5 (52 level gap)
99.375-0.625 (78 level gap)
99.961-0.039 (130 level gap)
This system would result in the leecher gaining the same %/hr at all levels. It makes it easy to calculate the ratio between same % and actual % gained by leeching:
160: 100%
147: 192%
134: 365%
108: 1288%
82: 4336%
30: 32307%
It's not hard to see why leeching is so good. If you're getting 1/4 of the exp with a 160 mage, you still gain 10 times as much exp at level 80 as you would soloing.
I'm not necessarily advocating the identical doubling rate - the curve in player strength isn't the same as the exp curve, and some normal parties would lose out on this scheme. But it should be an exponential fit, rather than a linear one, so the extreme level gaps result in extreme exp penalties on the lower player.
ex. formula fix: define X=(1.04^{level gap}) - note level gap is negative for lower player, so eg. -13 levels = 0.6(lower) to 1.66(higher)
exp(non-kill): 0.8*(Xa/[Xa+Xb])
exp(kill): 0.2+0.8*(Xa/[Xa+Xb])
etc.
For 3+ person parties, define X[i,j] = (1.04^{level gap between player i and j, li-lj})
exp(kill by player j, for player i): 0.8*(X[i,j] / sum_(k=1 to n){X[k, j]})
exp(kill by player i, for player i): 0.2+0.8*...
I think that works out ok