That way small battles still get decent xp, and long battles can get more, up to a certain point, then it drops off, to discourage people dragging it out.
What about a progressive gain for xp? The further into the battle the more XP you get each/every ticket/minute/10 tickets. With a limit cap of course.
That way, you will be encouraged to organize during the first periods of the battle and play with more tactic in mind, instead of the mindless charges into defenders camp and etc. However, the downside to this is that it could lead to camping - from both sides.
But on the other hand, when it reaches those highly rewarding stages, people will really try and make a difference to help their respective team.
You could just have xp every minute ala the battle server.
First 10 minutes x5
Second 10 minutes x4
Third 10 minutes x3
Forth 10 minutes x2
After that x1
Seems like the simplest way to go about it.
You could just have xp every minute ala the battle server.This system discourages large battles and siege battles. I'd have to have this system while taking a castle/town
First 10 minutes x5
Second 10 minutes x4
Third 10 minutes x3
Forth 10 minutes x2
After that x1
That way small battles still get decent xp, and long battles can get more, up to a certain point, then it drops off, to discourage people dragging it out.
Seems like the simplest way to go about it.
This system discourages large battles and siege battles. I'd have to have this system while taking a castle/town
I don't think so. The people planning the battle/seige are gonna do it regardless of xp because that is not their primary motivation and I think people will sign up for it as a guaranteed 120,000+ xp.120K xp for an hours worth of playing, I can get than in 30 minutes playing in battle. 7500 XP per minute on a 5x for two rounds and that's already half of that 120K xp.
Personally, I'm a fan of the static exp gain per minute, as in, somewhere above x2 per minute.
I don't think you should try to encourage or discourage any kind of behavior in the strat battles. People should be able to use the tactics that they want. So I'm not a fan of encouraging more kills and less stalling because sometimes a holding a shieldwall or skirmishing is a perfectly justifiable tactic.
I am intrigued by Mala's suggestion of having exp gain for attackers fall as a function of time, while defender's exp gain increases as a function of time. That could be interesting.
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
Both of these either neglect differences in the size of a battle or the type of battle which is rather undesirable.
Not really, my suggestion has variables for both the type and the size of the battle. In fact whether or not the size of the battle matters or not depends upon it differentiating between different battle types. So I am left wondering how you could think such a thing."...you should get an amount of experience relative to the number of troops involved". You pretty much blatantly disregard small scale battles or bandit vs. caravan battles. They're almost always going to be very small and in random locations that don't matter to factions.
(1)Why should you get extra experience for being slow anyway? Surely the faster you win the battle the better, why reward tardiness with extra experience per minute. (2)Why should the amount of experience depend on the amount of people killed (except in field battles) when the objective is not to kill the enemy but take or defend the fief, the amount of experience should depend on the fief surely. (3)Whether you take a fief by killing 10000 men or you take it by sneaking through and capping a flag you have ultimately achieved the same goal and should get the same amount of base experience.
I think attackers and defenders should be a different xp gain system, because they have different objectives.Can we stop with having xp based on how long the fight goes on? I would think simply losing the battle as an attacker when the current timer runs out would be enough to remove any delaying that goes on. There's no reason to completely pigeon hole everyone into simply rushing their opponents. Playing cautiously and watching your opponent and then reacting is a valuable strategy that we shouldn't try to remove from strategus.
Attackers could have at the start of the battle an "xp timer". Like 1000 tickets starts with 100.000 xp, and if the attackers don't kill any defender for long time, or if they drag for too much time, they loose more and more xp until it reaches 0 and the battle is over (and defenders won).
Indeed generally it is penalized simply by the lack of success. Not to be confused with simply win/loss. There is such a thing as a strategic victory while still losing a battle. Your system doesn't take that into account. If a 200 troop, well equipped army is attacked by 1000 mildly equipped troops, yet they lose, even if you bleed 999 troops, you aren't rewarded for pulling that off. This is the underlying problem with not looking at what goes on during a battle. I should have actually stated this rather than my example with not having enough equipment.(click to show/hide)
---
The main problem I have with the alternatives to a set amount of experience per battle is that almost all of them I have seen suggested so far will probably affect how people fight. If the amount of experience is greatly affected by how you act in the battle, whether length or the amount of tickets you kill or whatever it will change how people fight. If the reward is set per battle and the only thing you can do to change the reward is win or get kills without dying then these are the only two things you will promote, and are IMO the only two things that should be promoted.
Anyway Tydeus it seems we disagree on some fundamental points, so I think we are gonna have to agree to disagree.
PS I really think not having enough equipment for your troops is a major commander error and really is something that should be and is in fact already penalised, generally by resulting in terrible defeat.
EDIT:Can we stop with having xp based on how long the fight goes on? I would think simply losing the battle as an attacker when the current timer runs out would be enough to remove any delaying that goes on. There's no reason to completely pigeon hole everyone into simply rushing their opponents. Playing cautiously and watching your opponent and then reacting is a valuable strategy that we shouldn't try to remove from strategus.I guess the reason many people wants to link xp gain on battle time is that we are all sick of battles dragging forever or defenders charging just to finish the battle quick even if it's ovious they'll lose.
I guess the reason many people wants to link xp gain on battle time is that we are all sick of battles dragging forever or defenders charging just to finish the battle quick even if it's ovious they'll lose.Honestly I would be fine with it had there not already been a time limit set on battles. Due to the time limit (Which I think is a better means to the same end), I feel like any more would simply be over kill. Maybe not everyone is aware of this time limit set on battle length? Maybe I was trolled and there is no such limit? In which case, I propose there be one.
You will still be able to camp delay and skirmish, but you will be encouraged to find other ways to fight, so we poor melees we'll have to spend less time sleeping behind siege shields
But maybe what kato proposed (fixed x2 with bonus for winners) would be a better and simpler solution, if put togheter with your proposal ( attacker lose if you reach some "maximum time" shorter then current one possibly)
This value XYZ(or Q) would then be ran through some equation to work out given experience depending on how the battle went. Perhaps for example by a ratio for "team kills" versus "team deaths" and some sort of multiplier for winning or losing. So if you win you get more experience and if you get more kills than deaths (as a team) you get more experience, per person.
Indeed generally it is penalized simply by the lack of success. Not to be confused with simply win/loss. There is such a thing as a strategic victory while still losing a battle.Your system doesn't take that into account.If a 200 troop, well equipped army is attacked by 1000 mildly equipped troops, yet they lose,even if you bleed 999 troops, you aren't rewarded for pulling that off.This is the underlying problem with not looking at what goes on during a battle. I should have actually stated this rather than my example with not having enough equipment.
You could just have xp every minute ala the battle server.
First 10 minutes x5
Second 10 minutes x4
Third 10 minutes x3
Forth 10 minutes x2
After that x1
That way small battles still get decent xp, and long battles can get more, up to a certain point, then it drops off, to discourage people dragging it out.
Seems like the simplest way to go about it.
Best idea ever man good job nice idea.
Good to see that you can finally see why it's so difficult to implement a proper solution :)
Another thought worth discussing - Should the losing team get less xp than the winning team? Because I'm worried that it will move good players to the side that will most likely win, thus hurting the unbalance even further. Say, a battle 1500 vs 100 - when the 100 fight bravely, should they get less xp than the big army? I don't see the reason, it's not the players fault the guy defending himself had less troops.
You could just have xp every minute ala the battle server.
First 10 minutes x5
Second 10 minutes x4
Third 10 minutes x3
Forth 10 minutes x2
After that x1
That way small battles still get decent xp, and long battles can get more, up to a certain point, then it drops off, to discourage people dragging it out.
Seems like the simplest way to go about it.
You could just have xp every minute ala the battle server.
First 10 minutes x5
Second 10 minutes x4
Third 10 minutes x3
Forth 10 minutes x2
After that x1
That way small battles still get decent xp, and long battles can get more, up to a certain point, then it drops off, to discourage people dragging it out.
Seems like the simplest way to go about it.
yeah... maybe the best way is X troops = 2x, y troops = 3x, z troops = 4x and n troops = 5x... i started it at 2x cause you dont get gold playing strat, so may as well give a bit more xp. as a estimate for variable numbers... maybe less than 100 is 2x, 101-300 is 3x, 301-500 is 4x and 500+ is 5x. (considering the new upkeep and gold system id ont think you will see too many battles with much larger numbers than that... and even if there are... well its still going to be the important battles that have 500+ troops on each side...The issue with this is that it changes the gold per minute depending on the size of the battle. chadz specifically stated he didn't want that to be the case if possible.
Remember to take the following into consideration:If the amount of xp given is dependent upon troop count, either initial, current or final troop count, you're going to end up with a system that either favors large or small battles.
Not Abuseable,
higher than spending the same time on a battle server,
should be the same for either everyone or everyone of your team,
should maybe not discourage fighting in small battles
So if you have a genious idea, shoot :P
Good to see that you can finally see why it's so difficult to implement a proper solution :)
Another thought worth discussing - Should the losing team get less xp than the winning team? Because I'm worried that it will move good players to the side that will most likely win, thus hurting the unbalance even further. Say, a battle 1500 vs 100 - when the 100 fight bravely, should they get less xp than the big army? I don't see the reason, it's not the players fault the guy defending himself had less troops.
imo xp should be static and equal to both sides, all this talk about strategic victories etc is kinda dumb. Isn't it enough if you get you enemy fucked and win a bigger conflict for pulling shit like that, do you really need the game to reward you with extra XP for things like that, like isn't the moral blow against the enemy and land you've taken enough?Exactly. But i think xp nerf for losers shouldn't go too far, otherwise people will be discouraged to sign for losing team.
What if you just do a straight 2.5x for everyone +100 bonus xp for every kill for everyone, regardless of whos side they were on?
In an hour fight with 1000 casualties (average village fight) you'd get 250,000xp.
That way:
A) Defenders show up even if they know they'll lose cause they'll still get xp from their deaths and any kills they manage to get
B) Small battles get less xp overall than big battles, but are shorter (presumably) giving approximately the same xp/minute
C) Doesn't reward k/d ratios which is already such a big factor in hiring that many regular joes can't get hired for strat battles at all
D) Is not some byzantine equation that will confuse people. They can look at a battle and approximate how much xp its worth.
I don't like your suggestion Casi^^
1. Why should the team, that kills more due to better equipment, preperation etc get less xp than the other team?^^
If you do not reward victory you run the risk of creating a system whereby people do not care about whether they win or lose. Who will then act in a corresponding manner.I don't know if you were replying to my post, but what I suggested does reward those that fight well, even if the team will ultimately end up losing. I guess a third bonus could be given to the winners. Perhaps something along this: (duration^0.90) * 300. Would give 22k extra xp to winners after a 2 hour fight, 12k after 1 hour etc.
If you do not reward victory you run the risk of creating a system whereby people do not care about whether they win or lose. Who will then act in a corresponding manner.
I don't like your suggestion Casi^^
1. Why should the team, that kills more due to better equipment, preperation etc get less xp than the other team?^^
2. Wouldn't that lead to people choosing the team that will most likely lose? Like a neutral village with shit equip? Regardless whether they lose in the end, they would get x4 the whole time and the attackers would get x2? o.O Naaahhh
I agree with chadz and Vibe, that neither the winning nor the losing team should get any xp bonus. Both sides fight very hard and try (or at least should try) their very best and it wouldn't be nice to be punished for losing after maybe 2 hours of fighting, just because you had worse equipment and not a fully organised clan behind you :/
What?
Clans care about whether they win or lose and hire people who care. The XP is just a bonus.
AI Village/castle/town defence and random mercs that for whatever reason may not care.
Maybe link it to K:D of the team and how well they are doing.
Start of round teams start with x3 (Higher than average multi gained playing battle), If your team's K:D goes positve (1.5:1) this drops to a x2 and the other team raises to x4. This encourgaes people not to quit when loosing and seems harder to abuse than some other systems. XP is only gained when a certain number of kills are achieved per minute.
Logic behind this is that the team which is winnign in the fight would not mind being on a lower multiplier as they are currently dominatign the other team, in a balanced fight where the K:D is balanced then players will recieve more XP than playing on battle servers and players are less likely to quit when their team is loosing in strategus as they recieve a good amount of XP.
If you do not reward victory you run the risk of creating a system whereby people do not care about whether they win or lose. Who will then act in a corresponding manner.Whatever happened to strat gold for mercs? I thought that was there to incentivize winning a strat battle. Of course currently no one is paying a damned thing for mercs because gold is so hard to get. Maybe we should bring this into the conversation as well?
I think the majority of people talking about K:D are talking about team ratios, not personal. Which is completely different.(click to show/hide)
Whatever happened to strat gold for mercs? I thought that was there to incentivize winning a strat battle. Of course currently no one is paying a damned thing for mercs because gold is so hard to get. Maybe we should bring this into the conversation as well?
I think the majority of people talking about K:D are talking about team ratios, not personal. Which is completely different.
How about a gold boost for not dieing? Instead of incentivising kills, not dieing should be incentivised. Nothing is going to make you not want to die more than loosing potential fun money.
Have everyone start with 1k and for each death loose 100 gold until they have none left.
Obviously the vast majority of battles will see no one get a bonus but your going to stick by your shield wall a shit load more if it could it earn you 1k.
What is even the point of xp in strat battles? It does not transfer to crpg does it? If your strat char leveled you have no way of spending their points? Also if I retire and go a diff build does my strat char change too? Does it stay always on par with my current crpg char?xp is connected to one char.
Perhaps a moral bar.....like shogun. Everyone starts at base x3 or x2 and can improve moral with kills flag caps or flag returns and the other teams moral drains respectivly. So, after every minute a distribution of the moral is tossed out with the x2, then reset back to even but whoever had the greater moral gets a plus x1. So during the battle a team after 5min could have a x5 plus moral distributions. Whether or not the multiplier is appplied to gen or the moral distribution is subject to chadz. Everyone gets at least x2 plus distribution but the better team gets more. So, losers of the battle could potentily gain more xp over the duration of the battle than winners.
An ultra-annoying horse archer is applying pressure on the enemy team, does some random damage and is annoying like hell, but want to win. :D
Just add a constant 3x tick. It's simple, we know it works, and its more rewarding than normal battle/seige. At the very least add it in the meantime until something permanent is put in?
Maybe give a bonus at the end for the winning side.
I'd like to note that all xp systems will be abusable somehow. It's just how people are, they will find a way. You can even exploit and leech on the normal crpg servers if you are clever. It's not game-breaking though. It's controlled.
We must not let the possible exploitation of a few ruin the experience for the many!
I think a constant 3x is the best solution to implement for now. If there are a lot of "faction vs same faction" battles coming up, and leaching is suspected, just have an admin drop in and make sure nothing illegal is happening.
A possible solution to inner-faction leeching: (regardless of what system is finally implemented):
Half the amount of xp earned for "faction vs. same faction" battles. This can simulate the devastating moral loss of a civil war, and also discourage leeching tricks. At the same time, it keeps the possibility open for a real civil war to break out if someone so desired...though of course the penalty would make it undesirable.
If this above penalty is included with my idea of a 3x tick...it would make it a 1.5x tick. This would make it slightly worse than just playing crpg battle/siege, so it is unlikely this would be abused (why waste time if you can just hop on battle and do better?)
I dunno man I think they gave up. Strategus gives shit exp, no gold, and the "economy" never took off and everyone uses peasant armor and worthless shields yet buy the best loomed bows they can afford because they can be picked up and reused infinitely. Strat is worse then it has ever been.
reverting back to having damage type based on bow and not arrows would be better. Longbow would finally be useful and pragmatic.
I dunno man I think they gave up. Strategus gives shit exp, no gold, and the "economy" never took off and everyone uses peasant armor and worthless shields yet buy the best loomed bows they can afford because they can be picked up and reused infinitely, which 2 shot everybody. Also, cav was removed completely. Strat is worse then it has ever been, its nothing but tedious browser based bullshit and extremely unfun and imbalanced battles.