Experience in strategus battles

[Gisbert_of_Thuringia]

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 :/

[Wallace]

Maybe victory in certain things could reward and end round mass bonus

Siege:Attacker - 400,000
Siege:Defender - 200,000
Battle:Attacker - 150,000
Battle:Defender 300,000

Of course these values can be altered and have a variable

Example: 100,000 xp/500 troops conquered for siege while on attack... I think this would both be a heavily rewarding system and at the same time not allow abuse such as creating a 1 v 1 siege scenario back and forth to mass farm xp

Edit: toss a 25-40% bonus to the losing team so people dont simply sign up for a guaranteed win and blow off signing up for a shitstorm

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 - chadz

My thoughts are if someone is running of alone with no sense of support from allied troops that is the risk you run... it is currently happening to my alliance and in no way do I feel that we should be rewarded for having a runner leave the safety of the pack

[Keshian]

Im concerned with the time based one.  Because there is a huge benefit to signing up for all battles, showing up the first 10-20 minutes and then ditching when it switches to x1 (im looking at you neutral fief applicants).  Also, sieges which are anturally longer would see tons of mercenaries deserting once it switches over to x1, especially on the neutral defending side.  It creates the wrong instigace.  What we need is a fixed system of xp based on numbers of troops and the benefit to finishing a battle quickly is that you got that xp in less time so you made more xp per minute. 

So 1000 v 500 (which currently is max 1 hour) would give 100,000 xp (200 per troop of the smaller of the two forces).  If you take the full hour it would be essentially a 1.6x multiplier, but if you got it done in half an hour it would be essentially a 3.2x multiplier.  So sound tactics that bring victory more quickly would be rewarded.  OR it could be 100 xp per troop killed on both sides.

[Elmokki]

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.

This is actually a very interesting idea. Along with the points given it is fairly plausible. The more carnage there is, the more collective learning there is. This wouldn't necessarily make npc village defenders just die in droves to get quick xp either, since the more your team kills the more xp  you (and every single other player on the server) gets.

[Ozin]

Every tick all players get x1 xp, gen bonus i applied to this only. Two bonuses will also be calculated for each team at the end of the battle. The first would take the amount of lost troops for both armies into account and gets bigger the longer the battle lasts. The second compares the average equipment cost for both armies, to somewhat counter the first bonus being too friendly to well equipped armies facing peasants. Note that the second bonus does not have battle duration as a factor.

First bonus: duration * x * (enemyLosses/selfLosses)
Second bonus: selfLosses * y * (averageEnemyEquipmentCost / averageSelfEquipmentCost)

The x and y constants should be tweaked to balance these out, and give an appropriate amount of xp.



Example: xp for a player defending an AI village against a 1000 troop enemy army with superior equipment. Defenders lose all (500) troops, attackers lose 400 troops. Duration 60 minutes.

Defenders:
Xp before bonus: 60 * 1000 = 60k
Bonus 1: 60min * 1000xp * (400troops/500troops) = 60k * 0.8 = 48k xp
Bonus 2: 500troops * 25xp * (600g / 350g) = 12.5k * 1.71 = 21.4k xp
Total: 119k xp

Attackers:
60 * 1000 = 60k xp
60k * 1,25 = 75k xp
400 * 25 * 0.58 = 5.8k xp
Total: 140k xp

edit: 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.

[22nd_King_Plazek]

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.

[Tristan]

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?^^

Of course they should. Listen... Better preperation should be rewarded. Lucky those who are accepted for fighting on their side.

And no, the way I revised Casi's system it should not be abusable.

[Ozin]

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.

[22nd_King_Plazek]

I was just making a general statement

A lot of people have been suggesting winners should not be rewarded which sounds pretty lame to me.

[SPQR]

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.

What?

Clans care about whether they win or lose and hire people who care. The XP is just a bonus.

[Casimir]

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 :/

Well it is the obligation of the attackers to fill their own roster, this is normally achieved where as villages before have often not.

And its not about how much sense the system makes in term of the game but more in terms of the game play, problem with old strat was that many people would quit if their team began to loose leading to a crushing defeat even though they still could easily have won.

Attackers are more likely to stay because a.) their faction / clan is doing well and is improving in strat b.) if they are on an x1 or 2 they will probably be getting lots of kills which is satisfying

[22nd_King_Plazek]

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.

[Digglez]

AI Village/castle/town defence and random mercs that for whatever reason may not care.

mercs might care if the AI actually payed instead of welching.  have to stay for duration of battle to be paid, easy

[Slamz]

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.

The abuse for this system would be to just intentionally throw the match, especially in a village defense.  "I don't care about this village, I just want my x5!  CHAERGE!!!"  Some people would try to make your team lose because they'd rather have the loser reward than the winner reward (or they realize they are going to lose anyway and just want to maximize it).

I don't think K:D should be used as a measure anyway.  If you get to something like 200 deaths and 50 kills, you know that's probably not going to get turned around to anything positive.


...

Actually, what COULD work and might be an improvement over my original idea as well is a minute-by-minute K/D reward system (or, say, K/D calculated and reset every 3 minutes).

So during this 3 minute period, your team's K/D is 3:1.  Big reward.
During this next 3 minute period, your team's K/D is 1:2.  Smaller reward.

It could be something like:
(no kills) = x1 multiplier
1:3 KD or worse = x1.5
1:2 KD = x2
1:1 KD = x3
1.25:1 KD = x3.5
1.5:1 KD = x4
2:1 KD = x5
...?

("0 deaths" would be treated as 1 for the purpose of K:D.  So 3 kills and 0 deaths = 3:1 reward.)


We could also take an element of my "kill density" concept and say that for the x5 reward, you not only need a 2:1 K/D for your team, but you also need to have killed some minimum number of enemies (perhaps a percentage of tickets, or a percentage of people on the roster.  That way, if it was 50vs50, you can't just literally kill 2 people and then hang back -- you'd have to meet the K:D requirement as well as a minimum kill rate to qualify.


The point of resetting the K/D calculation is that even if your team sucks it up for the first few cycles, you don't need to overcome your total K/D, which is in the pits -- you just need to do well for the next cycle.


In summary, I vote we just lock chadz in a room with no food until he comes up with a solution.  I predict it will take no more than 6 hours.

[MadeForFighting]

I strongly disagree with all the ideas proposing bonus experience for kills. That will encourage unorganized randoms just to blindly charge in and waste tickets in hopes they will manage to get some kills. The simplest solutions are best : standard ticks like the crpg servers have, x2/x1.8/x1.5 (whatever the dev team decides) and thats it. I dont see a way of abusing it other than being AFK.
Also, some classes would not be treated fair by the xp based on k/d system. An ultra-annoying horse archer is applying pressure on the enemy team, does some random damage and is annoying like hell, but does not usually score a crazy amount of kills, usually less than other classes would. He still contributes to the team, just in a diffrent way.
Or some other scenario - a shield wall in a choke point is holding their ground while archers shoot the enemies from the walls. Archers wipe out everything, but that would not be possible without the shielders holding enemies down. Lots of other examples could be made, but you propably get the point.

Rewards for the winning team are silly, if strategus will eventually provide more experience than normal battle servers its a big enough profit to participate, no need for others. Noone needs motivation to want to win.