more chadzhate incoming - heirloom theft

[DrKronic]

The exp being exponential makes any level above ~36 basicly unreachable (the fastest route takes dozens of retirements)

But still it's weird you can retire faster the second time.

So what could be a nice thing would be :

Higher xp bonus for early retirements
going down to tiny amount for higher generations

Let me explain a little further :

The base minute xp gain is 1000 xp

Retiring once could give you 14% more (1140 xp per tick)
The second time could give 13% more of what you were winning at the previous gen. (1270 xp per tick)
The third gen gives 12% more bonus (1390 xp per tick)
and so on
gen 04 - 11% - 1500 xp
gen 05 - 10% - 1600 xp
gen 06 - 09% - 1690 xp
gen 07 - 08% - 1770 xp
gen 08 - 07% - 1840 xp
gen 09 - 06% - 1900 xp  *here the value is equal to what it is in the current system
gen 10 - 05% - 1950 xp
gen 11 - 04% - 1990 xp
gen 12 - 03% - 2020 xp
gen 13 - 02% - 2040 xp
gen 14 - 01% - 2050 xp


and any generation above 14 should not give any more xp bonus, thus avoiding it to become uber fast.

Another cool change could be softening the xp curve while making the level requirement for retirement go up (first retirement, lvl 31, then lvl 32... but only if the xp curve is softened), that would also prevent some very few nolife people to do ridiculous amounts of retirements.

I agree with this kind of limiting of generational xp and posted a method similar to this(a bonus to xp for strategus character(main) + a bonus that would cap out at like 50-75% from generations but the thread was locked

[Joker86]

I've got a rather good solution, which has some flaws, but on the other hand it would make leechers disappear almost totally, and people who actually deserve it get heirlooms:

Make it based on the amount of rounds you won! (Just calculate the average amount of rounds you win unitl you reach lvl 31). So people, who help their team quite effectively can get their heirloom sooner, and people, who already own all the equipment they want, and have a maxed build (lvl 30) will concentrate more on tactics and winning the round than on leeching or simple killing/leading the scoreboard. Naked leeching/botlike behaviour would be contra productive.

Possible disadvantage: you could join with a mate on an empty server and win 20 matches in 10 minutes.

Counterargument: it's not very likely you can achieve a real advantage on this way (you need an empty server for quite some time, and a mate who has nothing better to do). And as the server is empty, your leeching can't annoy anyone. If this is your idea of playing a game... well.. fine... I don't care 

[Oldsnake]

Amount of rounds u won? Totally random! Unless u're one of the few guys capable of changing the fate of a match! And u're not...

[Joker86]

Perhaps. But it changes the motivation. As it could be that it's YOU who wins this paricular round. Or this. Or this.

[Punisher]

Such a system based on rounds won can't be implemented with the current faulty autobalance and the majority unbalanced maps where 1 team has a village to defend while the other one rushes from open ground. Just think that 90% of the times a team wins 5-0 or 5-1 (the team that wins first round either isn't affected at all by autobalance, either is completely screwed and loses all following rounds).

[Joker86]

Hmmm... what are you complaining about, in fact? 

If you base it on XP it's also completely random when you will be able to retire, as with a high modifier (which, where we agree, is dealt more or less totally randomly to the players) you can retire earlier. So either you retire randomly (concerning time) by XP and modifier, or you retire randomly by won rounds. But latter increases your motivation to actually win a round, as a loss gives you nothing. XP is earned always, though.

[UrLukur]

Well, i feel that bonus xp should stay as it is. Instead, increase lvl required to retire every 3 generations to make it harder (1-3, lvl 31;4-6, lvl 32 and so on), this way, grinders will grind.

[Heroin]

Hmmm... what are you complaining about, in fact? 

If you base it on XP it's also completely random when you will be able to retire, as with a high modifier (which, where we agree, is dealt more or less totally randomly to the players) you can retire earlier. So either you retire randomly (concerning time) by XP and modifier, or you retire randomly by won rounds. But latter increases your motivation to actually win a round, as a loss gives you nothing. XP is earned always, though.

By that logic, there is no reason to change the current system. If your only argument for it is motivation to win the round, that already exists in the current incarnation of cRPG. Win round = More XP = closer to retirement with bonus. It wouldn't be any different with "rounds won". Since people consider it mostly random based on who they get autobalanced with, the result will be approximately the same as it is now.

If you disagree; Calculate the time it takes to get to level 31 with a x1 multiplier. It's obscene.

EDIT: I did it for you. 145 hours of play time. That is an incredible amount of grinding for any casual player, equal to working a full-time job for 4 weeks.

[Balton]

By that logic, there is no reason to change the current system. If your only argument for it is motivation to win the round, that already exists in the current incarnation of cRPG. Win round = More XP = closer to retirement with bonus. It wouldn't be any different with "rounds won". Since people consider it mostly random based on who they get autobalanced with, the result will be approximately the same as it is now.

If you disagree; Calculate the time it takes to get to level 31 with a x1 multiplier. It's obscene.

EDIT: I did it for you. 145 hours of play time. That is an incredible amount of grinding for any casual player, equal to working a full-time job for 4 weeks.

Regardless, win ratio should be made to play a bigger role than it does now. There are way too many tkers/afkers/lamers at the moment.

[Heroin]

There are way too many tkers/afkers/lamers at the moment.

This is a side effect of altering the XP earning system. People no longer have to get close to the fighting in order to get XP. Everyone knew that would result in more BS, unless they were lying to themselves. The question that begs to be asked is; Does the positive change outweigh the negative?

The new XP system rewards sound tactics and teamplay. It allows flankers to be equally rewarded when they cause their team to win. It doesn't punish archers simply for being archers. It is, in my opinion, far superior to what we had before.

However, I WOULD like to see a change in the XP system. Perhaps cut the current XP given per tick in half, and replace that half with a hybrid of what we had before. You get the normal "per tick" xp, but you also get xp for being near kills that occur, or for scoring kills yourself.

Having a hybrid XP system would eliminate some of the lameness/leechers by making depending ONLY on "per tick" XP extremely inefficient. Thoughts anyone?

[Thomas Dixon]

This is a side effect of altering the XP earning system. People no longer have to get close to the fighting in order to get XP. Everyone knew that would result in more BS, unless they were lying to themselves. The question that begs to be asked is; Does the positive change outweigh the negative?

The new XP system rewards sound tactics and teamplay. It allows flankers to be equally rewarded when they cause their team to win. It doesn't punish archers simply for being archers. It is, in my opinion, far superior to what we had before.

However, I WOULD like to see a change in the XP system. Perhaps cut the current XP given per tick in half, and replace that half with a hybrid of what we had before. You get the normal "per tick" xp, but you also get xp for being near kills that occur, or for scoring kills yourself.

Having a hybrid XP system would eliminate some of the lameness/leechers by making depending ONLY on "per tick" XP extremely inefficient. Thoughts anyone?

smartest thing you ever said lol jk

[Reinhardt]

This is a side effect of altering the XP earning system. People no longer have to get close to the fighting in order to get XP. Everyone knew that would result in more BS, unless they were lying to themselves. The question that begs to be asked is; Does the positive change outweigh the negative?

The new XP system rewards sound tactics and teamplay. It allows flankers to be equally rewarded when they cause their team to win. It doesn't punish archers simply for being archers. It is, in my opinion, far superior to what we had before.

However, I WOULD like to see a change in the XP system. Perhaps cut the current XP given per tick in half, and replace that half with a hybrid of what we had before. You get the normal "per tick" xp, but you also get xp for being near kills that occur, or for scoring kills yourself.

Having a hybrid XP system would eliminate some of the lameness/leechers by making depending ONLY on "per tick" XP extremely inefficient. Thoughts anyone?

Instead of eliminating any "tick" bonus you get and replacing it with an "old system model" (which would technically hurt archers...), why not add a 1-2 gold bonus for each kill, as well as maybe 50-100 exp? Nothing huge, just so that you feel as though getting a kill will help you with your finances and experience bonus, no matter how minuscule (as well as you not having to rely on your team for EVERY piece of gold you make. Perhaps adding an assist system would help as well, in order to lower the rate of teamwounds and teamkills due to idiots running over their allies for the one peasant kill.

[Butan]

Perhaps cut the current XP given per tick in half, and replace that half with a hybrid of what we had before. You get the normal "per tick" xp, but you also get xp for being near kills that occur, or for scoring kills yourself.

Having a hybrid XP system would eliminate some of the lameness/leechers by making depending ONLY on "per tick" XP extremely inefficient. Thoughts anyone?

The down side is, with a hybrid system with per tick+near killz and/or score, the PRO frontal melee will have 100% xp, and the archer/noob/flanker will have 50%; it could lead to too much frontal attacks and lame xp progression for certain people.


With the actual XP earning system, the only down side I find is leeching (and perhaps not enough reward for killing): but leeching is easily spottable and righty bannable, and one could say the best reward for scoring kills is helping your team to have more XP via the multiplier.



Thus I think the actual xp system is the best I heard of for the moment, and should only be tweaked via increasing or reducing the "per tick" time or the amount of xp by tick.



Although, the gold system could be separated from the xp system by adding other factor to the "I grant thou gold", but idk if its worth to consider even a subtle change in the actual xp/gold system.




Idea from reinhardt : assisting system sounds good, an opposing system could penalize TK by withdrawing some xp and/or gold.

[Heroin]

Idea from reinhardt : assisting system sounds good, an opposing system could penalize TK by withdrawing some xp and/or gold.

The problem with that idea is that the game does not track assists, which is why the original XP system was based on proximity to kills. It's not possible(that I know of) to make it give you XP for assisting, since the game doesn't keep track of who dealt damage. This is why I suggested the hybrid idea.

With the hybrid idea, yes, archers and flankers might get a bit less XP, but not a lot less. The only people who'd get heavily hit would be the AFK's, Leechers, Lamers, and TKers.

[Halevolm]

Hmmm, funny though how much free time people have. I'm gen 11 and it takes me about 1 week to get to lvl 31.... I wonder how people can be so no-life that can get 8 million xp on one day.  The xp system prob. would need little bit tweaking. Alltough I don't support kill based rewards because it has been found just terrible gamewise everyone rushing for getting the killstrike.