Talk:Experience

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape

Contents 1 Reorganization 10 Nov 2008 2 Alternate Uses 3 Exp calculation? 4 XP Table Error

[edit] Reorganization 10 Nov 2008

I reorganized the entire article into several sections. I rearranged the paragraphs and grouped them together under "Gaining Experience", with a subsection involving the exponential growth of experience. The "Combat Experience" section is two equations from the Skills article plus the monster equation, which was for some reason under "See Also" in this article. I think the "Relationship with Level" section is self-explanatory. "Equations" is composed of new information that I put together (and also put on the Skills article) about the mathematical relationship, and "Table" retains the table of levels and experience. I also tweaked some bits and pieces like fixing grammar, adding links, and removing redundant information caused by my new additions. -- Jared 68.97.56.173 23:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate Uses

Can't "XP" also translate as ":P" with a laugh at the same time? While rarely used in RS, I've come across it several times here, and it's more common amongst games that don't feature the alternate meaning of Experience Points. Is it worth including? —Yleron (talk • contribs) forgot to sign this comment on 2007-05-24T12:01:53.

If it's rarely used in RS, and this wiki is about RS, it seems a bit too obscure to include. If anyone does see XP written in public chat or on a talk page here on the wiki, they will probably get that it's an emoticon from the context. So I guess I would say no it's not really worth including. Leevclarke, AKA Max Bulldog 00:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I may change my mind about this. Maybe we should list all reasonable interpretations, and leave the user to pick the most appropriate from the context of where they see it. Usually there will be no ambiguity. Leevclarke, AKA Max Bulldog 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exp calculation?

The experience scale is is a linear decay. The equation is something like this;

Y=0.90572581463947592807398535639101X-.000001

When this equation is graphed onto a chart, it shows the decreasing experience needed to be a level. On a graph of 10x10 blocks, it starts at (9,9) and goes to (0,0). (9,9) represent level 99 and (0,0) represents level 1.

Just some extra information. Joshua Vincent ^{Talk Contrib}

is the formula for Runescape's Xp(the formula in equation form where L is the level you're calculating for) --Alex 14:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know how/why we know that equation? I can't imagine that someone spent enough time analyzing the curve to get an exact fit, but how else would we know that? I've always wanted to know, and maybe that would make a good addition to the article. Mischlings 18:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that would be the best way to work it out. There's two curves I can think of that can be used (level against experience at level, and level verses experience since last level). Since either curve is obviously exponential (as the value starts small and gets large very quickly), you have a base for an equation in terms of and (along the lines of where is experience, is level, and and are unknown constants). Then messing around with that equation, possibly some calculus, and maybe some computerised methods of determining curves' equations, you could come up with formula above.  Gaz Lloyd ^Calcs!_Awesome 19:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is extremely interesting but I fail at maths, can anyone show a graph that sums up the above formula for the unenlightened like myself?--86.149.45.110 20:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] XP Table Error

Shouldn't level 1 be 0 xp? You start out with no experience at level 1...

Also, there is an error in the table. Level 16 shows less xp than 15!

When I put the xp formula into excel, I got the following info, which is slightly off from the table in the article.

Level		Exp.		Exp. Diff
1		0		0
2		83		83
3		175		92
4		277		102
5		389		112
6		513		124
7		651		137
8		803		152
9		970		168
10		1,155		185
11		1,360		204
12		1,585		226
13		1,834		249
14		2,109		275
15		2,413		304
16		2,748		335
17		3,118		370
18		3,526		408
19		3,976		450
20		4,473		497
21		5,021		548
22		5,626		605
23		6,294		668
24		7,032		737
25		7,845		814
26		8,743		898
27		9,734		991
28		10,828		1,094
29		12,035		1,207
30		13,367		1,332
31		14,837		1,470
32		16,460		1,623
33		18,251		1,791
34		20,228		1,977
35		22,410		2,182
36		24,819		2,409
37		27,478		2,659
38		30,413		2,935
39		33,652		3,240
40		37,229		3,576
41		41,176		3,948
42		45,534		4,358
43		50,344		4,811
44		55,655		5,310
45		61,517		5,862
46		67,989		6,472
47		75,133		7,144
48		83,020		7,887
49		91,727		8,707
50		101,339		9,612
51		111,951		10,612
52		123,666		11,715
53		136,600		12,934
54		150,879		14,279
55		166,642		15,764
56		184,046		17,404
57		203,260		19,214
58		224,473		21,213
59		247,892		23,420
60		273,748		25,856
61		302,295		28,546
62		333,811		31,516
63		368,606		34,795
64		407,022		38,416
65		449,435		42,413
66		496,261		46,826
67		547,960		51,699
68		605,039		57,079
69		668,058		63,019
70		737,635		69,577
71		814,452		76,818
72		899,264		84,812
73		992,902		93,638
74		1,096,286		103,383
75		1,210,429		114,143
76		1,336,451		126,022
77		1,475,589		139,138
78		1,629,208		153,619
79		1,798,816		169,608
80		1,986,076		187,260
81		2,192,826		206,750
82		2,421,095		228,269
83		2,673,123		252,028
84		2,951,382		278,259
85		3,258,603		307,221
86		3,597,800		339,198
87		3,972,303		374,502
88		4,385,785		413,482
89		4,842,305		456,519
90		5,346,341		504,036
91		5,902,840		556,499
92		6,517,263		614,423
93		7,195,638		678,376
94		7,944,624		748,985
95		8,771,568		826,945
96		9,684,587		913,019
97		10,692,639		1,008,052
98		11,805,616		1,112,977
99		13,034,441		1,228,825
100*

Daves.not.here 18:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The formula isn't wrong, it's just an approximation. The equation on the page right now, , is an approximation of the true equation, which Alex has posted above. You can see that if you neglect the floor functions in the true equation, you will get this approximation. It seems to me to be a good approximation, since it is only off by 10 XP at level 99. As for the other things you mention, it seems someone fixed that in October. -- Jared 68.97.56.173 20:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This issue should be resolved with my reorganization today. I put both the exact equation and the approximation in the "Equations" section. -- Jared 68.97.56.173 23:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)