Forums-->Ideas and suggestions-->
| Author | Give Out Experience Based On Kills , Not Victory |
|---|
I think in order to reduce AFKing in combat , as well as to facilitate quick character growth , I think that experience should be given based on the number of kills , not whether the player is victorious or not .
Although it is a widely known fact that experience is given out based on kills , it is largely affected by a minimizer or a maximizer . For example , in a 2vs2 fight , there's player a and b whilst the other are players x and y .
The battle is fought out , and player a and b emerge victorious . However , player x and y have killed larger number of troops than player a and b had killed . On the other hand , player a is more actively involved than player b , moving his turns when they come whilst player b only checks on the game every now and then , just to make sure that he isn't missing more than five turns .
In the end , player a gains more experience than players x and y combined , whilst the inactive player b still gets a sizeable amount of xp larger than both players x and y combined . Even though players x and y have killed more enemy troops , having lost the battle has significantly reduced their experience gained .
Therefore , I propose that experience points be given out based on the number of kills , and not victory or loss in combat . Although players equipped with ranged units will benefit more from this , at least , in my opinion , it will make the game more fair and less frustrating .
(This suggestion is only for combat level experience only , since I think that the faction experience gained during combat is fair enough . I would also like to add that the current rule saying that the winner gets the skeletons should still be upheld) | | AFKs are not getting any experince or skills | Therefore , I propose that experience points be given out based on the number of kills , and not victory or loss in combat
all losers will receive exp? just silly | | Losers get some XP but they can get more SP than other xp will be below 10% of the winnders i think:) AFKers dont get anything dealt dmg = XP | | Some players don't need to actually attack and kill to help out - Druids for example can help win a game with magic from afar, as theri stonskin can make a Group of Goblins for example a hellova lot scarier:P | | ya.. if exp is directly proportional to the no of skills, then strategy and support moves will never come into game play. | Doomer quoted :
AFKs are not getting any experince or skills
Well , I was reffering to AFK's who check on the battle only every now and then , not total AFKs who commit suicide .
As for KingoChennai and TRIDENT ,I believe that even completely defensive druids will be able to achieve kills , it would be crazy if a player only has spellcasting units . Come on , are heroes only good for casting spells ? And do elven players only have spellcasters(druids) ? I'm sure they'll have some attacking units , be it melee or ranged . Besides , I am talking about COMBAT LEVEL , which means that you have to stab/hack/possess/incinerate/shoot someone in order to gain experience . As for the spellcasting , perhaps it would contribute to faction skill level or something .
Thanks for the feedback , though , be it positive or negative . | | Other than that , I think that it would especially be fair in an everyone for himself battle . After all , even though sitting out a match may be considered a tactic , it would not be fair to the actively pugnacious players. | | What about the players that are good for tanking? Wizards, for example, can't do as much damage as the other classes. However, they are good for absorbing hits, and can have a huge impact on the result of the battle. Why should wizards receive less experience for having poorer stats than the other races? | 1: combat level is a lot less important than faction level, so losing is no big deal, you get ratioed more skill points when you lose.
2: if it would be only kills thaty count, there is no teamplay, who cares the team loses as long as i can make juicy kills?
3: the example above (of player a and b and x and y, of course cannot happen, x and y would win because they killed more together and you win a battle when you killed the opponents.
4) in an all for themselves, well, i have gotten more exp that the nr 1 in a battle, simply because he was waiting in a corner and I killed of a lot more. | | and it's bad enough for players with low initiative to get in the fight. If it was based solely on kills, high init ranged units would always be at an advantage. | I did not see this thread when i opened my own.
here is the link to my topic: http://www.heroeswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1834178
and here is the content:
"
Hello, i have noticed that some races (especially as elf) has to deal alot of damage in early battle. They have nothing that can act as tank really. At the same time you are often one of the first targets.
But anyway, this is not the problem, thats how the race is build and i like it. I gonna make an example and i hope you will get my point.
The elf always has to face opponents right away because of their ranged power. When the ranged power is down the forest keeper has to attack and he has weak defense. Elfs deal alot of damage in the early stage but gets not often rewarded for their work since they usually die before the battle is over.
Compare with example necromancer, never the first target since they are slow and lack ranged attack. But always the last man standing in the team and usually the only surviver in the battle since they only have to finish of the last opponents.
All this is based on a level 3 character, now i know that this might change later on, but the problem consist someone will always be the first target and someone the last.
I think how much damage you deal (even if you die) or are in the loosing team should be better rewarded. If not this will also lead to cowardness and people just trying to run away and stay alive for as long as possible and maybe make it through.
Just some thought, please comment, and if you are not quite sure what i mean please ask!
//Hatred"
To Kimbert: I can understand that point of view to, but i still dont find the current experience system fair. | | no comments on this? | | i think its a GOOD idea!!!! | to 12
the kills do count, you can be the first one out, if your side wins and you have done a lot of damage in your few turns, you get the most exp.
even better, your army is allready restored while you encourage your teammates to finish the job.
beina alive at the end does not give ye more exp (but it does mean you are at the winning side and that gives something like a 10x modifier on kill xp compared to losing side).
quite often my dark leves were killed of early and i got the most exp of all | I've been thinking this too.
When I am battling and I lose, the winner will gain 10x more exp. than me, even though it was down to the last few troops. | | Nice idea but some bunus EXP for the Winner schould be there (like you get killed HP in EXP and the winner gets 1,5 * killed HP as reward^^) | | i think he ment suriveled battle off the block of 100 over....that too crazy | | tranlation, it is going be over then 100 battle and more monster going incress that i would expeiced right? and that really can blow out the player ezly | | pluse there is no way they can surived like over then 50 battle as they are fighting endless battle. How about we have a quick healing button for your troops for each battle you won? and i say make a quit button so that they can have there exp anyway |
Back to topics list
|
