Experience in strategus battles

[22nd_King_Plazek]

(click to show/hide)

I agree people fighting small bandit fights or caravan battles are going to get a lot less experience if you used my suggestion. However these battles are much lower stakes so surely this is right? It would not be hard to have a minimum level of experience though so make sure there is at least some incentive.

1) This encourages slow battles over decisive ones, if you win a fight quickly then why should you get less experience than if you take forever to achieve the same result. This is not the some carebear crap it does not matter how hard you try how much "effort you put in" but on what you achieve.

2) This is not true, you can capture the flags as well. This may currently be near impossible due to current flag placement (as an attacker) but it is pretty viable as a defender.

3) Yea so maybe you did own them for some time and maybe you got yourselves a real good k/d as a team, so maybe my suggested variable depending upon your teams k/d vs the enemy teams k/d would come into affect, and depending on how it effects final experience quantities you will get even more experience than the winners should you have forced a pyhhric victory.

---
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.

[Kato]

x2 for every minute + bonus xp for winnners

xp only little above average in crpg battle, so xp gain not influence battle strategy and tactics

[Tydeus]

(click to show/hide)

I agree people fighting small bandit fights or caravan battles are going to get a lot less experience if you used my suggestion. However these battles are much lower stakes so surely this is right? It would not be hard to have a minimum level of experience though so make sure there is at least some incentive.

1) This encourages slow battles over decisive ones, if you win a fight quickly then why should you get less experience than if you take forever to achieve the same result. This is not the some carebear crap it does not matter how hard you try how much "effort you put in" but on what you achieve.

2) This is not true, you can capture the flags as well. This may currently be near impossible due to current flag placement (as an attacker) but it is pretty viable as a defender.

3) Yea so maybe you did own them for some time and maybe you got yourselves a real good k/d as a team, so maybe my suggested variable depending upon your teams k/d vs the enemy teams k/d would come into affect, and depending on how it effects final experience quantities you will get even more experience than the winners should you have forced a pyhhric victory.

---
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.

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.

To sum it up: Such a system would be "good" only if each side going into the battle could be considered equal, if the odds of victory were truly 50:50.

[Sharky]

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.
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)

[Tydeus]

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.
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)

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.

[22nd_King_Plazek]

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.

[Konrax]

You should get XP/Gold from kills but as an entire team for each individual kill.


Here is a formula for each kill:

1 Gold x (Character level / 5) = 1 - 6

+

Total gear cost /10 (This gear number here may need a bit of tweaking.

+

1 Gold for each kill that player had before being killed. (Enemies cutting your team down will be more valuable kills.)

+

1 Gold for maintaining an equal or positive k/d ratio.

-

1 Gold for maintaining a negative k/d ratio.



XP = Gold value X 20+retirement bonus    (50g to 1000xp in normal servers ratio)


EDIT: Also add some bonus for winning a battle.

[Dach]

KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid

What's wrong with x4 by tick like normal battle???  (with gen bonus applicable obviously, otherwise high gen people may not bother...)

To people complaining about x4 being too high... in normal battle server the average is already x2. Also in Strat you don't gain gold... only xp. I think it's a fair bonus for participating in a strat battle.

and maybe add your total xp of the battle x 1.5 (or less) for the winner.

So small or big battle, doesn't matters...

Dragging... fight already have a time limit no?

other objections?

[arowaine]

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.

[LLJK_Korea1]

Best idea ever man good job nice idea.

quoting this because im lazy fuck

or static xp ticks x2-4 dont really care what it is unless its x1.

It's simple, it works, why should we sperg some overly complicated system where you have to place apple on the certain branch of certain tree to activate xp, after that pelt pebbles at apple while running backwards but if you drop the apple you lose all the xp.

Interesting, maybe?

Amusing, yes.

Does it really work, No.

[Black_Charger]

Fixed amount of XP(like 350 000 for battles with more than 100 tickets,for smaller 150 000), winner get 200 000 ,loser 150 000,it should be divided with amount of kills team has and multiplied by amount of kills someone has,and that's his XP gain.

[chadz]

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.

[Matey]

i wouldnt give any bonus to winning team... too many battles are garunteed victories for attacker since they generally dont initiate fights they cant win.... well... i guess you could do a bit of a bonus for defending team if they win? since defenders are less likely to have an overwhelming advantage unless it was a feint or something... maybe best just to not give a bonus...

[LLJK_Korea1]

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?

[Vibe]

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.

Exactly, people would be encouraged to try and join the obviously winning side, resulting in stacking players on one side and not enough on the other. Just keep the XP same for both losing and winning team, this way people can just join the team that they actually want to help, and not the one that will net the most xp.

Also this:

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.