Experience in strategus battles

[SPQR]

The average modifier on battle is x2, so we're talking like 120,000 xp an hour.

So at 10 minutes per multiplier we'd be looking at 140,000xp first hour.
At 15 min per multiplier we're looking at 210,000xp first hour (!)

And yeah use gen bonuses too.

[Gisbert_of_Thuringia]

Hoi chadz, can't you just change it to something that comes spontaneously to your mind for now and then figure out a better solution?

Because at the moment it is really no fun and I fear that the solution will be out after all neutral villages and castles are taken^^


10k xp for 30 minutes yesterday :/

[Aseldo]

Why not just have a set amount like 3k exp and 150 gold per minute? People couldn't abuse it because strat battles have time limits.

[Digglez]

x2.5 or x3 for entire duration

[Slamz]

Base XP around "kill density".

1 minute of 0 kills = x0.5
1 minute of 20 kills = x5

20 tickets represents 20 man-hours of work now, right?  And that's at 100% efficiency.  So this may be reasonable.  Even if those kills were totally naked, they still represent an investment of time.    ("20" is arbitrary.  I'm not sure what the real number should be.  What's a reasonable kill rate for 50v50 in heavy fighting?  Or 10v10 in heavy fighting?)

This encourages fighting.  Wanna sit back and do nothing?  Enjoy your x0.5 XP multiplier.

It could additionally be modified, to a small extent, by equipment value.  Like a fully plated out guy counts as 2 kills.  If you kill 10 plated guys in a minute then it's counted as 20 kills for the "kill density" reward value.  A moderately equipped peasant is like 1.1 kills.  A solid medium armor loadout would be like 1.5 kills.  Basically come up with a "high value character" and use that as the basis.  e.g., if your gear is worth 50,000 or more, your kill counts twice for purposes of "kills per minute".  If your gear is worth 25,000 then your kill counts as 1.5x, etc.


So if you wanna get the XP reward, you need to start mulching people.  If they're worth a lot of money, so much the better, but it's not really necessary if you're killing them fast enough.

[22nd_King_Plazek]

Why not just have a set amount of experience per type of battle?

If it is a village fight then you get X amount of experience, castle Y, and town Z. If it is a fight in the field then you should get an amount of experience relative to the number of troops involved capped at value Z (or Q). Field battles could also have the amount of experience at stake depend on proximity to fiefs. A skirmish in the middle of the open plain with no nearby fiefs is not as valuable as one outside the gates of a town. So maybe even a small fight in a place of interest could be rewarded properly.

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.

I suggest communism for doling out experience because strategus battles are a team effort and I think it would be bad to encourage kill stealing or wasting your lives for the chance of more kills and thus more experience. People can fight in support and get very few kills but be much more valuable to the team than some kill whore.

---
Seems to qualify for most of your requests, maybe not a genius idea though

[Nessaj]

Communist XP.

I approve!

[Panoply]

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.

[Digglez]

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.

That would certainly solve the problem of defenders rushing out to be butchered by attackers.

[Tydeus]

(click to show/hide)

Base XP around "kill density".

1 minute of 0 kills = x0.5
1 minute of 20 kills = x5

20 tickets represents 20 man-hours of work now, right?  And that's at 100% efficiency.  So this may be reasonable.  Even if those kills were totally naked, they still represent an investment of time.    ("20" is arbitrary.  I'm not sure what the real number should be.  What's a reasonable kill rate for 50v50 in heavy fighting?  Or 10v10 in heavy fighting?)

This encourages fighting.  Wanna sit back and do nothing?  Enjoy your x0.5 XP multiplier.

It could additionally be modified, to a small extent, by equipment value.  Like a fully plated out guy counts as 2 kills.  If you kill 10 plated guys in a minute then it's counted as 20 kills for the "kill density" reward value.  A moderately equipped peasant is like 1.1 kills.  A solid medium armor loadout would be like 1.5 kills.  Basically come up with a "high value character" and use that as the basis.  e.g., if your gear is worth 50,000 or more, your kill counts twice for purposes of "kills per minute".  If your gear is worth 25,000 then your kill counts as 1.5x, etc.


So if you wanna get the XP reward, you need to start mulching people.  If they're worth a lot of money, so much the better, but it's not really necessary if you're killing them fast enough.

(click to show/hide)

Why not just have a set amount of experience per type of battle?

If it is a village fight then you get X amount of experience, castle Y, and town Z. If it is a fight in the field then you should get an amount of experience relative to the number of troops involved capped at value Z (or Q). Field battles could also have the amount of experience at stake depend on proximity to fiefs. A skirmish in the middle of the open plain with no nearby fiefs is not as valuable as one outside the gates of a town. So maybe even a small fight in a place of interest could be rewarded properly.

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.

I suggest communism for doling out experience because strategus battles are a team effort and I think it would be bad to encourage kill stealing or wasting your lives for the chance of more kills and thus more experience. People can fight in support and get very few kills but be much more valuable to the team than some kill whore.

---
Seems to qualify for most of your requests, maybe not a genius idea though

Both of these either neglect differences in the size of a battle or the type of battle which is rather undesirable.

[Bjarky]

there won't be any pub crawls anyway cus of the current troop upkeep system.
so just make xp like the end in first strat for now and figure out a smarter system for later, cus this will prolly take some time to figure out properly.

[22nd_King_Plazek]

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.

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. 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. 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.

[Sharky]

I think attackers and defenders should be a different xp gain system, because they have different objectives.
Attackers could have at the start of the battle an "xp timer". Like 1000 tickets starts with 200.000 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).
Ofc the more tickets you have, the more starting xp you should have, so a long big battle will make good xp if you don't camp, while you will still get some xp from little battles but still less then a bigger battle.


For defenders is more difficult. Maybe: If defenders loose, they have the opposite rule. The more time they manage to hold off the enemy, the more xp they gain. So defenders will be encouraged to defend and not charge like headless chickens for the sake of finishing it quickly.
But, if defenders win this rule doesn't work. Why should defenders be punished if they take the flag early or if they win by killing enemy by spawnrape or whatever? So xp gain should be based on something else.
Maybe they steal half of attackers starting xp, or they get 20 xp for every enemy soldier that dies(actual mercs not tickets, so really big battles will not give insane amounts of xp, but they will still give more xp then small battles wich is fair)

Also maybe make a xp nerf after the battle if you are the loosing side

This will not solve completely the attackers camp/ defenders charge issue, many clans don't give a BIRD about xp, as long as they win. But at least it rewards both sides when they do what they are supposed to do

[Tydeus]

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.

(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.

"...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. More experience per minute spent playing or overall? Of course you should get more xp overall the longer the battle goes on, as more time is spent playing. Quality or effort exerted should be assumed to be the same regardless of the type of battle. You shouldn't get paid extra for working few hours unless it's harder work.

2.Regardless of what you think, strat ultimately comes down to reducing your opponents tickets to 0, thus kills matter. Until core strat mechanics change and shift the quota, I see no reason for this to change.

3.Implying xp should only be awarded by the end results? I don't like that idea one bit. You can be rolling your opponents for the first half of the battle because you have superior equipment, then run out at the end and have to resort to scavenging. It doesn't necessarily mean you should be penalized for not having enough equipment for your entire troop count. I think it would simply be better to just award bonus XP for capping flags.

EDIT:

I think attackers and defenders should be a different xp gain system, because they have different objectives.
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).

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.

[Keshian]

Reinstate xp of battle server of last year based on proximity.  Startegus is about teamwork anyway, so the more coordinated everyone is the more xp they make.  Roughly 200 xp per kill would be 100,000 xp for taking a village max 1 hour.  In 1 hour on the battle server averaging x2 you make 120,000 xp.  This would also favor strategies for winning abttles quickly.