Experience in strategus battles

[Matey]

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...

*note: it would go off whichever side has the least troops, not the one with most or both combined.

p.s. it is possible for people to use delay tactics to get more xp... but theres usually admins in any larger fight who could kick delayers if people are just blatantly delaying near the end... also since there are time limits on fights, i dont see peope exploiting to get x2 multiplier with small fights since the time limit is like 10-30minutes anyways... though you could always do 50-100 as 2x and less than 50 as 1x

[Chort]

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.

but would like to see

First 10 minutes x8 
Second 10 minutes x4
Third 10 minutes x3
Forth 10 minutes x2
After that x1

[Tydeus]

Finally people are realizing simply giving a bonus to the winners is fail, it's the same with dishing out xp at the end essentially. I fail to see how the system I proposed doesn't meet all of the standards required in this thread, not to say that it's a perfect solution, but rather to get back to focusing on the why/why-not for already proposed ideas. Once we clear up what works and doesn't, we might be able to create a better system.

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:
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

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.

[Slamz]

First 10 minutes is x5: best abuse = a series of battles where neither of us brings equipment or fights.  We just stand there for 20 minutes and then retreat.

Flat reward per battle: best abuse = attack with as little as possible and lose as rapidly as possible.

Both of these are too abusable.  I think it makes more sense to tie the multiplier into damage done.


A fixed multiplier of 2.5 or so might be reasonable.  We *could* stand there and do nothing but for 2.5x, we'll be thinking we could maybe get more just by going to the battle server and winning a lot.  So it's abusable, just not very much.


That's where my idea of rewarding based on kill density comes in, along with a time limit for the attackers.  It does force aggression but I don't see where it's abusable.  And kill density could be a factor of how many players there are in the battle.  So to get a x5 multiplier in a 60v60 fight, maybe you need 20 kills per minute, but for a 10v10 fight, maybe you need 4 kills per minute or something like that (with "10" being the minimum, for purposes of the calculation, in order to keep the rewards down for uselessly small fights like 1v1).

[Casimir]

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.

[LLJK_Simonslays]

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.

I don't see any reason to complicate it by having uneven xp, generally the motivation to show up and perform in a strat battle is to advance your own clan's fortunes either by aiding them in battle or showing up to contest a battle waged by their rivals. The xp issue as far as I can see is just to make sure that people show up for the less important battles.

edit- The villages actually paying the merc fee like they're supposed to would be another incentive for defenders to show up

[Sharky]

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.

[Kato]

Still think that bonus for winners is good thing, but need to be implement in similar way as fame in singleplayer.
-  if odds are in your favor you dont get any bonus.
 - even odds - you can get same nice bonus
 - as underdog you can win huge bonus

different bonus for type of battle
1. towns
2. castles
3. village
4. openfield where both side have over 100 tickets
5. small battle, raids

[marco1391]

This is how I think it should be implemented:I think it should be a composition of 2 factors.
The first factor would be a static multiplier that affect every game for both teams: I propose 1500xp/minute for that.
The second factor would be reliant on both equip and troops, and should be similar to the old strategus xp sistem.The second factor should be based by 40% on troops killing and 60% on equip(max +150% over the base xp per kill)
there should be an equipment cap for xp as 40k worth of gear per player is used(that would consist in the +150% over the 40%)

What needs to be done:establish the average number of kills per minute in a strategus battle(I think the devs already have the number), let's call this akpm.
akpm*x should be equal to 1000
so let's assume the akpm are 10, x, that is the basic xp per kill(without equip), should be one hundred(10*x=1000, x=100)

How I see this working: if we take into consideration the average amount of kills for a strat battles the xp awarded in a normal strat fight would be 1500+1000*equipment factor
so 1500+killsinthatminute*x(akpm)*equipment factor

examples:
two opposing teams camping gets 1500xp and not more
two opposing teams fighting normally(akpm) naked would get 1500+1000*1=2500xp/minute
two opposing teams fighting with 10k gear per player doing the exact akpm would get 1500+1000*1,375=2875 xp/minute
two opposing teams fighting with 20k gear(a lot for strategus standards now) per player doing one and a half the kills on an average battles would get 1500+1500*1.75= 4125xp/minute
two opposing teams fighting with 30k gear doing half the number of kills in an average strat battles would get 1500+500*2,125=2562xp/minute
and so on

why I think this could be a very good system:
-same xp for your team(no idiots trying to get the killing hit to get more exp/bigger e-peen)
-it disadvantages camping teams(1500xp/minute)
-it provides a motivation to fight hard to get a bit more of xp per minute
-it awards xp partially based on the gear of the battle
-it awards xp partially based on the performance of the battle kill wise for your team
-the amount of xp awarded can't change drastically(from 1500 to 6000 per minute on extreme cases, anyway it could be simply capped at 6000/min to avoid any kind of possible exploit)
-it gives motivation to play aganist an high geared team(equip multiplier factor per kill), as well as fighting versus paesants(higher akpm)
-it doesn't discourage fighting in small battles
-In case of spawnrape with naked people even with high akpm(let's say 4x)you still wouldn't get more than 5500xp/minute, and after the retreat has been implemented I don't see how this could be done

the only disadvantage I see is that it could be hard to implement for chadz
duh I just realized I made a wall of text

[Tristan]

I like your suggestion Casimir. We should not look at K:D of each individual but of the team. The idea of supporting class is for the team to make more kills right?

Both sides start with x2, a team gets the upper hand (By like a 20% margin) tip it to x1 and x3. Take an enemy flag gain a x1 extra for 1 min. Retake 3 of your own flags gain x1 for 3 min. Etc. etc.

[mandible/splinteryourjaw]

xp is standard 10k per ticket up to an equal number of defender tickets (for ex. village would be 500+500 or 1,000 tickets).

Attacker's side will usually have more so these tickets only give 2.5k per ticket so:

 (2(number of defender tickets) + (number of attackers tickets - number of defender tickets).25)10000= total amount of xp available.

This amount is the total pool of xp available and is split among participants at battles end in the following percentage: positive K/D 125% neg K/D 75%.

so on a battle of 500 vs 500 (with 30:60 fighters) xp would equal 1000*10000=10,000,000/90= approx 111,111 xp per battle or those with +k/d getting 138889 and - k/d = to 83333

 
Bigger battles would take more time, thus demanding more tickets, and as such the xp would increase relative to the troops/tickets needed to fight the battle per the formula.

And when the attacker side is actually smaller than the defender some sort of if/then or null would have to be incorporated.

You could also incorporate a component that tracks time actually played to prevent those from entering the server real late just for the xp.

I might also consider granting up to 75% of the total xp periodically during the battle...just in case somebody gets disconnected from the server they won't lose everything.

Support class arguements are viable in battle, but in strat battles the support class needs to be a little more battle aware.  I don't get a lot of kills as a support/battle archer (who doesn't carry a melee), because I mainly try to wound as many as I can before they engage my teammates or I engage other archers who are shooting at my team; regardless my K/D on the strat battles I played is 59/21............ssssssssooooooooooo I would still get the +k/d bonus.
 

or you can change the larger army's tickets xp value, only the number of tickets over the defender's ticket number, so that it offers more than 100% rewarding the combantants for the smaller army actually getting a higher k/d than the larger army.

Some type of set xp would be much easier though.

[Beans]

Why do we need to give out XP at all? People flock to strat battles even without XP, no need to create complicated work for yourself.

[Konrax]

After I got 250 xp last night for a strat battle I was a bit disappointed that I could have just played in a normal server for exactly 1 minute and got more xp.

Since I am currently factionless I don't have any specific reason to fight in strat other then for fun (which is is pretty damn fun) but I would also like to see my character progressing somehow.

[Thax]

While you are deciding this and working out a complicated system can we at least get x3 in strat for the moment?

[SPQR]

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.