#### 1Big Chief

##### Well-Known Member

Only gripe.. is people that never had issues with Max 6,000 FF Xp .. now gripe that 18,000 xp is still too little oh my

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Syntex
- Start date

Only gripe.. is people that never had issues with Max 6,000 FF Xp .. now gripe that 18,000 xp is still too little oh my

what makes you think that? 6k was too low for max 150 level and now we have 250, lol.people that never had issues with Max 6,000 FF

Anyhow I hope it helps to cheer Adventurers a little bit

Bonds reward system however..

what makes you think that? 6k was too low for max 150 level and now we have 250, lol.

Anyhow I hope it helps to cheer Adventurers a little bit

Bonds reward system however..

Advens will continue to suck, unless you can get a lvl 1 gringo ofc .. but that would require no real life n probably being divorced if one did

The explanation wasn't great, but my understanding is that higher level players in the battle = higher maximum exp possible

If the median level is 250, then the maximum exp possible will be 18k. We'll find out soon enough if this is exploitable or not since this will be the first test.

There's also been a, separate, dramatic change to how individual exp is rewarded, much less emphasis on damage dealing, making it fairer for tanks, and also with ghosting actually being taken into account for the first time ever.

That's yet to be seen, I hope this is just the start of a deep series of battle fixes, and the end of ignoring the proliferation of very high leadership values with no diminishing returns to damage that causes Advents with bad luck and Tanks with 20k HP to be 2-round wonders on a tower.Advens will continue to suck, unless you can get a lvl 1 gringo ofc .. but that would require no real life n probably being divorced if one did

My read is that the formula is designed to be tweaked further to establish more balanced rewards if the new settings aren’t quite there.Advens will continue to suck, unless you can get a lvl 1 gringo ofc .. but that would require no real life n probably being divorced if one did

Adventurer still sucks, but now we get better rewards at forts. It's a good start, but I hope these changes won't stop here.This is pretty huge for Advents

Do these changes actually erode the differential in ease with which Duelers and Advents can gain full XP? Or do they simply make it easier to get 6k XP for advents while half-decent damagers will be able to get 18k XP regularly?

I have an advent skilled as a damager with Union gear on one world. I am curious to see what the rewards will be there - only problem is that there are no ffs worth anything there.

its actually 0.012 per average level. so if the average is 178(2.136x6000=12816 exp)

Do these changes actually erode the differential in ease with which Duelers and Advents can gain full XP? Or do they simply make it easier to get 6k XP for advents while half-decent damagers will be able to get 18k XP regularly?

I have an advent skilled as a damager with Union gear on one world. I am curious to see what the rewards will be there - only problem is that there are no ffs worth anything there.

Last edited:

its actually 0.012 per average level. so if the average is 178(2.136x6000=12816 exp)

Per the Community Manager post prior: "The maximum receivable experience points has been increased by 3 times, so the max value will be 18.000".

So I used the max. Syntex said. But say in a ff it really is 6k for advents v 12k for damagers, the rewards still seems inequitable. I admit I am guessing at numbers so we will see what the real impact is down the road - but I would be pleasantly surprised if the differentials are not increased as a result of this change!

I think another buff of per participants would be welcomed with the same method. 0.012 per participant should be easier to do.Per the Community Manager post prior: "The maximum receivable experience points has been increased by 3 times, so the max value will be 18.000".

So I used the max. Syntex said. But say in a ff it really is 6k for advents v 12k for damagers, the rewards still seems inequitable. I admit I am guessing at numbers so we will see what the real impact is down the road - but I would be pleasantly surprised if the differentials are not increased as a result of this change!

Making the max exp 56,160.

medium forts(other than colorado, up to 28,297 if average is 178)

Example:

20 hits = 10k exp

20 dodged = 10k exp

20 hits taken = 10k exp

5 ghosts = 20k exp

A certain amount of damage = 20k exp

Etc

Admittedly it's not fool-proof and could be exploited by multis too...

I think they will try to get it right in the new update, so having another buff of participation would be better in my opinion. Since they already have event currency coded already, just have to use it for experience. It wouldn't be exploited by multis as the number is exponentially better the higher you go.I mean.. As far as I know, compared to Bonds, Xp rewards are/were the secondary concern of the players.

So I do hope that they will balance Bond gaining formula too (while increasing max 18k Xp to something above 20k) , which also favors the Damagers by far.

edit:

The reason why I want it to be above 20k exp is so that people can at least now ff rather than church build all day.

1 hour of church building with almost zero consequences gains 8k exp on average per hour. A fort fight gets you up to about 11k if the average level is 150.

if you die, that would cost 100 energy, if you live it costs 0 energy and up to 1.5 hours of your time.(which is over 10k exp)

That's non-public information until players discover it for themselves and choose to share or not share.Is there a way we know which job drops specific collection items?

If its one side calculation, then one side would have the upper hand in long run. Where both is just fairish to both sides.

For example, if one side averages(current formula) 170 levels, they would gain a max of 12,240 while another sides be 130, the max would be 9360.

3k exp difference is too big, and in longer run would give one side advantage of about 1m exp if they dig each day , and if they gain the max each time.

Personally I’d rather they use your opponents median!

If its one side calculation, then one side would have the upper hand in long run. Where both is just fairish to both sides.

For example, if one side averages(current formula) 170 levels, they would gain a max of 12,240 while another sides be 130, the max would be 9360.

3k exp difference is too big, and in longer run would give one side advantage of about 1m exp if they dig each day , and if they gain the max each time.

It would completely remove the incentive to downrank low level players in favor of high-level noobs.

It would encourage more players to show up for the weaker side.

It would contribute to helping the weaker side catch up.

Share: