why do you get so little xp for replaying old missions? I recruited new characters but they get 2 xp or so per mission.
It's not so much "finished missions" as "missions that are lower-level than your characters." I calculated the XP over here. Compare your level to the adventure's level, and if your level is . . . Thus, if you replay a mission "designed for you," you get 10 XP each time. Replay one "too easy for you," and you don't get much. After all, you've seen how it's possible to get high enough level that they won't even let you use your level (they reduce it on the entry screen) when you replay the mission. I'm guessing you recruited some new level 10 characters and took them into a level 8 dungeon. Yes?
I supported that idea (the difference is too large) in that thread. However, it made more sense when mightymushroom (the mightiest mushroom of them all) showed me what it meant for the math over multiple plays (just check it out at the link). This way has some benefits. For one, Blue Manchu gets to discourage gamers from sitting in one place and exploiting an adventure that they found "easy": if you find ONE to be easy, and then get MULTIPLE levels from it, you make the NEXT adventures easy (because you become high-level) with a minimum of effort. Well, with less effort than you would if Blue Manchu changed the numbers.
While I still think we should get minor exp from failed missions our level, the current way exp is done makes sense.
I really agree that we should get exp for failed adventures but how would that work under the current system to be fair?
1 exp per adventure failure upon completion of a single map. Just enough to keep you going and keep incentive of leveling.
Hmm... i want to agree because it makes it as good as impossible to be stuck and that is really important. But at the same time that makes the miniscule exp you get from beating a adventure 2 levels under you seam even more insignificant. So i am very torn but leaning towards your side with the 1 exp.
Read it again you have to beat the first map at least and i assume they wouldn't give you the exp if you resigned anyway.
Given that the XP system is my biggest gripe right now, I spent a bit of time thinking about it and have a solution to propose that would potentially address all the concerns and still maintain appropriate balance: * Multiply the XP requirements per level by 10. I know this is slightly less aesthetically pleasing, but I believe the improved user experience would be worth it. * +2 level difference: gain 1 XP per battle completed (not per campaign!) * +1 level difference: gain 2 XP per battle * +0 level difference: gain 3 XP per battle * -1 level difference: gain 4 XP per battle * -2 level difference: gain 5 XP per battle For completing the final battle, reward the players with 3X the basic amount. Since most of your campaigns seem to average 4 battles, I believe this will mostly net out to roughly the same progression over time. Here are the added benefits: * You get XP for each fight completed, not just all of it at the end * Longer campaigns that require more time investment also reward additional XP (and shorter campaigns rewards less XP) * Still rewards players the most for attempting tough campaigns, but doesn't hammer them if they fail out midpoint. One potential drawback: * Battles in a campaign need to be tweaked so they are more or less the same difficulty. Alternately, set a 'level' for each battle in a campaign and award XP appropriately, so a level 11 campaign might consist of battles at level 10,11,11,and 12.
Say you get stuck on a battle and have to replay it several times to be able to continue the storyline - this might actually make you overlevel and trivialize the content in the end (especially if you happen to end up doing it on several missions). XP on last missions is a better way to funnel the player to a reasonable difficulty - and you can already replay earlier missions for xp if you get stuck (so there is a workaround for those that have issues). Can't say I believe this would be a good idea, but I do get your point Janus. However - maybe failing an adventure could give you some minor xp based on how many maps you beat? Might help you roll over the top and level up, if you're close et c.
Sorry, I forgot to mention that you wouldn't get XP for failing a battle. You do keep the XP from previously completed battles though. In this way the player is rewarded only for progress, so I don't think it would cause any overleveling problems. Either way, sounds like either solution would work as long as the 'fail' XP was reasonable. Ultimately I just want to stop having situations where I lose 30 minutes or more of my time and don't feel rewarded for it (which happens very often right now). Losing a battle's worth of progress wouldn't be a big deal - losing 4-5 battles worth of progress in a long campaign is a completely different story.
I think the pacing the game keeps the way it is has higher value than the "false" sense of progression exp on fails would give.
The exp system is fine, and mostly not relevant. Your level only determines how many items you can take, thus the devs can fine tune the experience knowing what slots you'll have open/ talent usage etc The cards & therefore the items are the important thing here. To deal with successive failures & retries we really need to discuss the stores & item drops upon map completion. The stores are being discussed in another thread. I think the best way to help people who are smashing face into an adventure and failing, especially at the first map, might be some kind of increasing pity treasure drop. So once the stores get nutted out our repeated suicidal attempts are rewarded with solid cash to try and buy some new/different items and get out of the rut.
