Saving The XP/WU System and Fixing Its Problems
The crux of this entire discussion seems to be that the current XP requirements, compared to the WUs required, is too low and encourages people to write bad writeups, because WUs are usually the limiting factor. I propose that this problem can be fixed using the current leveling system of requiring a certain number of XP and a certain number of WUs.
I decided to take a mathematical approach for mending the current XP system instead, because as other E2 users have noticed, Professor Pi's scheme has flaws.
Let's start off by looking at the XP needed and WUs needed for each level, plus the number of votes acquiring that level will get you.
Level XP WUs Votes
2 Novice 50 25 10
3 Acolyte 200 70 20
4 Scribe 400 150 30
5 Monk 800 250 45
6 Crafter 1350 380 60
7 Artisan 2100 515 75
8 Seer 2900 700 90
9 Archivist 4000 900 105
10 Avatar 7500 1215 125
11 Godhead 13000 1800 150
12 Pseudo_God 23000 2700 200
13 Pedant 38000 4500 300
Given that voting is impossible prior to Level 2, it is clear that a user needs to acquire two XP per writeup to reach that level. In fact, let's use it as a benchmark. Let's call it XP1.
Let's also assume that a writer can turn out one writeup at that level of quality (earning two XPs per writeup) every two days. Some writers can do better than this; others may not be able to. This is simply to establish some sort of baseline. So, then let's add another column called D2NL, days to next level.
Let's also assume that every other day you use all of your votes. This means that you should earn, on average, you earn 20% of votes in XP when you vote and 50% of your votes in XP after dumping all your votes. This totals to 70% of votes converted to XP every other day, or 35% every day. Let's call this DXPA, or Daily XP Added
On average, then, using the WU requirements, the XP numbers are far off kilter. Let's recalculate, using the formula (XP needed for Ln = XP needed for L(n-1) + XP1(of L(n-1)) + (D2NL*DXPA of L(n-1))).
Level WUs Votes XP1 D2NL DXPA D2NL*DXPA XP needed
2 Novice 25 10 50 90 3.5 315 50
3 Acolyte 70 20 140 160 7 1120 415
4 Scribe 150 30 300 200 10.5 2100 1675
5 Monk 250 45 500 260 15.75 4095 4075
6 Crafter 380 60 760 270 21 5670 8670
7 Artisan 515 75 1030 370 26.25 9712 15100
8 Seer 700 90 1400 400 31.5 12600 25842
9 Archivist 900 105 1800 730 36.75 26827 39842
10 Avatar 1215 125 2430 1170 43.75 51319 68468
11 Godhead 1800 150 3600 1800 52.5 94500 122218
12 Pseudo_God 2700 200 5400 3600 70 252000 220318
13 Pedant 4500 300 9000 n/a n/a n/a 477718
Compared to the old style XP requirements:
Level Old XP New XP
2 Novice 50 50
3 Acolyte 200 415
4 Scribe 400 1675
5 Monk 800 4075
6 Crafter 1350 8670
7 Artisan 2100 15100
8 Seer 2900 25842
9 Archivist 4000 39842
10 Avatar 7500 68468
11 Godhead 13000 122218
12 Pseudo_God 23000 220318
13 Pedant 38000 477718
It should be pointed out that a good noder who nodes more frequently than one every two days can easily level up much faster than I predict here, because of the merit of the "cooling" system, blessings, and additional XP that good writeups will incur. This is just intended to be a rough model of an average E2 user's behavior.
In this new scheme, levels are much trickier to come by. In fact, I believe that crossing the level line will often occur with writeups before XP. This means that good writeups that can continually earn XP as people discover them and vote up (as voters would on a good WU) become much more valuable, and bad writeups simply to fill a WU count will decrease in number.
The net result of this scheme is then the same result that Professor Pi wants: good writers are rewarded for good writing. Good writers, quite simply, will be able to progress through the level system faster than those who just churn stuff out to meet the WU requirement for leveling, because this system will place the emphasis on quality over quantity.
Of course, leveling up becomes much more difficult. But, on the other hand, people of a high level would deservedly have much more prestige in the system and many bad WUs would be avoided.
Some people would most definitely drop in level if this system were implemented today. Thus, if this were to be adopted, I would be in favor of "grandfathering" those people into their current level if they so wished, with the grandfather clause disappearing at their next level up.
I strongly encourage any comments you might have via /msg. Especially you, Professor Pi.
Professor Pi's comments:
- You are proposing to change the rules of the game. I am very
aware that my initial proposal did that as well, and based on the many
comments I received I have decided that it would be unwise to alter the
existing writeups/XP requirements. My second proposal does not change
the existing Level Advancement system; it only adds to the existing
rules. Increasing the XP reqs is not fair to those who have been
declining vote XP. Now they are faced with a big XP deficit for leveling
up, and it will be much harder for them to gain levels. Among
those people that decline voting XP are some awesome writers that we
- Voter participation is important; you assume using ALL votes every
other day for your XP gain. At the higher levels it is nearly
impossible to use all your votes unless you start dumping votes
carelesly; that is not good for the DB. Ask P_I how hard it is for him
to use ALL his votes... Granted, there is no incentive for him to
accumulate XP in order to rise to a non-existing level, but using all
votes can be hard for lower levels as well.
- I believe your system would put more emphasis on those
"subjective/joke/rant/sex" nodes as compared to a system based on
writeup reputation. Your system will accumulate XP for ALL those nodes,
as they get upvoted into the sky. A system based on a fair average node
reputation is less sensitive to this. An example:
Prof Pi's Stupid Example
Joke: 100 upvotes, 30 downvotes, 4C!s: 36 XP gain, and it gets nuked.
Solid State Chemistry: 30 upvotes, 3 downvotes, 2C!: 16 XP. That is less XP
gain, but I now created a useful and good contribution to the DB. And that is exactly what my proposed system intends to reward.