Eh? Eh? How own is that?

The second one.

That's the one I proposed.

Only the x^2 and the Sqrrt(x) are switched.

The first one needs a +2.78 to get level 1 to equal zero.

I vote for the second one.

lvl 100 : 99,999 xp ftw.

That's kind of small for level 100. Btw what does it matter if they're switched or nor? Commutative property...

Nothing, I was just saying that if you misunderstood what I said, since I do not know how to do what you did, with all the symbols and all.

It is kind of small, so why don't we put that whole formula in parentheses and put a 10 out there.

3X^3-3 is a little steep, and I can't really find anything in the middle.

The Runescape xp system gets REALLY steep.

I'm sorry, I'll just shut up and go away. :)

No, you're giving helpful input. Btw, if you don't know how to use [math], try going to the Math Problem thread in General, it has a minitut for LaTeX on the first post.

You mean like, ?

Yeah,

It ends up having lvl 100 being at 999,990 which is high enough right?

If not, then could be our default.

I've been researching on other games xp system and they all get very large at around 70 - 80.

Too high. Billions.

I don't like billions, makes the game feel like work.

Also, maybe lvl 502 is a bit much. I'd think maybe no cap, or a cap at a lower level so that it doesn't become Maplestory, xp and grinding wise.

200-251 is intended to be hell levels, and 251 will be the cap for a long time. Once elder is released, however, 251-300 will be a comparative breeze of leveling, due to higher-exp monsters being available.

Since our cap in any given stat is actually 600, well, I have to say that's a lot. We could just make it 200 normally and 400 after elder.

When graphing a function on the TI-83/4, remember that you can graph an "exp to next level function" by using as .

Looking at this, I can see that by level 10 you're needing 732 exp to get to the next level. That's too high for low level. I also notice that at level 300 you need 139k, which is too low for high level. As a result, we need a steeper formula.

However, I think an integrated log() function would be amazing. High gain at low levels, low gain at high levels.
After trying it, it sorta sucks though.

How about this one?

EXP Table is at http://officialgms.com/project/formula.php

What happened to quickpost?

Yeah, I thought mine was not steep enough, but I can't really find anything in the sweet spot.

I will check out yours later, I don't have time now.

Well, I had no idea it was gone. I'll re enable it later.

MM, your formula looks nice. It might be a bit too steep, but I think overall itll balance easiness and fun

Well, see, the issue with this is that everything is arbitrary, until we have one or two formulas.

... and what we're trying to do atm is get some formulas working. Obviously the one in G1 was too steep, since only one powernerd was able to make it up in the 24x range legitly.

MM, issue with yours: It's increasing by like 20k/level at 3xx. That's bad. It needs to be more exponential, with a way smaller increase at the beginning and it gets progressively harder. Like how in MS, at level 30 you already need like 50k to advance. But we should make it smaller because in g2 you'll be advancing multiple skills.

That's an issue. Hmm. ab^x is a pretty nice graph, but it might be _too_ steep. Probably just a polynomial with a ridiculous degree.

Um... ?

I'm just gonna keep throwing these out till one's right I guess.