Progress system for expedition islands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BB_Endesmor

Indirectly defeated units count towards the ranking, this is how players reach efficiency rates of 6 or higher.

BB_Endesmor

---

Thanks BB_Endesmor. Is this also true for experience gained? I used efficiency as the example because it's plainly visible and it's easily figured out.

What we're really trying to determine is do indirectly defeated camps add to our experience points. It's uncertain what's really happening there. I would assume that since it counts towards efficiency it also counts toward experience, but would like to know for sure how it's supposed to work. I'll continue tracking losses and see how it comes out live and report back later.

Only tier 3 colonies are taken into account to guarantee a fair ranking. Top ranked players are successful at PvP and play often, they will most likely have access to tier 3 colonies. It wouldn't be possible for tier 1 & 2 players to compete at all.

Efficiency is simple but there are some requirements:
-A minimum of 1,000 enemy units must be defeated
-Only fights from won expeditions are taken into account
If the above conditions are met, just divide the amount of defeated (directly or not) enemy units by the amount of units lost by the player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceruhe

...and using easy numbers, because I fail hard at taking the root from Pi over the decimal infinite of a prime dividing zero in half and some more to figure out how tired the elephant really is.

---

LMAO!!!

Interesting points you're laying out. I guess the only way to figure out what's actually happening is to track losses of every colony taken, enemy camps both directly and indirectly defeated tracked separately, and then using the XP values you figured out see how it all falls together. I'm leaning more toward camps that go down with the leader count as XP, but will find out soon enough.

As far as efficiency, as I said to BB_Endesmor, I used that example since it's something verifiable thru the system, where XP is not. It looks fairly certain it's a straight enemy loss / my loss calculation. Personally I don't care about rankings either. I'm working toward level 10 to get a 2nd armory and so want as much XP as possible for each map I take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perwyn

Thanks BB_Endesmor. Is this also true for experience gained?

---

As far as I know, this is true for regular XP but not PvP XP.

BB_Endesmor

Indirect kills are not included in PvP XP and valor points calculations. But they are included in the efficiency ranking. Like Perwyn, my main goal is to get to PvP level 10 to get the second armory. However, after cutting a path and taking out the map boss, there are usually some exposed leader camps that can be taken out without any blocks. Taking those out will still provide you with good XP/loss and also give you a bump in efficiency. I'm assuming that some of the world leaders in efficiency are simply cancelling expeditions that can not be taken efficiently. Perhaps the Germans set up their defensive camps so that they can get more indirect kills, thus increasing the efficiencies of their countrymen?

The plot thickens.......

Did a tier 3 regular colony today. Here's how the numbers came out.

Attacked 22 camps, including 6 leader camps.

Indirectly killed 25 camps. 6 of these were blocks. Also, 6 of the 25 camps consisted of 100 mercenaries.

Total kills according to efficency rankings was 5506.

Total direct kills according to my tally sheet was 2626. I didn't include blocks in this number. You'll see why in a second.

5506 total kills – 2626 direct kills = 2880 indirect kills.
2880 – 600 (6 mercenary camps of 100 units) = 2280 / 19 remaining camps using indirect kills/blocks = 120 which is the number of units per camp. So far so good, the math works out in that the difference between total kills and direct kills is logical and looks to be correct.

Then comes the 6332 experience awarded for 2626 direct kills, including 6 leaders and 40 bandit recruits. Let's back out the 6 leaders and 40 bandit recruits. That gives us 2580 units with a probable value of 2 xp each given Ceruhe's trial runs on test server. 2580 x 2 = 5160. 40 bandit recruits x 1 = 40, so added to previous total is 5200. 6 leaders at 50 each is 300 so Total XP for direct kills is 5500.

That leaves 832 XP unaccounted for.

Obviously the indirect kills of 2880 aren't being counted or the xp overage would be higher. Subtracting my losses of 1491 from 2880 = 1389. So it's not overage minus my losses. It's possible that certain units not included in Ceruhe's test award higher xp I suppose. I didn't kill that many dogs, but roughnecks and rangers are bad dudes so maybe they're worth more. I don't know. But it does look like indirect kills do not grant xp or at least not full XP. Now to figure out where the extra 832 XP came from.... or not. This is beginning to make my brainpan hurt.

Bottom line is yes, Wardog is correct. Indirect kills do not grant XP points. But something's still rotten in Denmark cause XP isn't working out according to what's been determined so far. It's gonna take a better mind than my own to figure this out. Imma just gonna play and get my second armory LOL.

Thanks BB_Endesmor for continuing to promptly answer my questions. If you can shed any further light on how PvP experience is computed that would be wonderful.

Quote:

---

Bottom line is yes, Wardog is correct. Indirect kills do not grant XP points. But something's still rotten in Denmark cause XP isn't working out according to what's been determined so far. It's gonna take a better mind than my own to figure this out. Imma just gonna play and get my second armory LOL.

---

Well, you can mess around with a small colony like I did and predict the exact amount of XP you will get....which works and leaves me with the only conclusion that indirect kills do not give you any XP whatsoever (needless to way we are talking about PvP XP and not regular XP/SC).

As you did T3 which has mostly completely different units, I could imagine, mostly the bosses, to reward maybe 100 XP or so, and Dogs even 3 XP each. And if I can take your "didn't kill many dogs but the others" at face value, it would appear that it could be reasonable that Dogs yield 3, Roughbaddies/Rangers 2 and Bosses 75-100. Likewise, maybe the Bosses still onlly give 50, but Roughbads and Ranger give 3 XP, which may be balance enough.

Also, indirectly killed is also something I need to cringe over. I'm guessing we simply go with the assumption of "leader killed, camps cleared, therefore indirect kill", as far as I would reason, skipping an entire sector due to pathing or partial clear / whatever, would be just as indirectly killed as the other method, simply for them "being out of the way", which would result in a "default" Efficiency of some sort, but that sounds sort of unreasonable....then again nothing I'm putting past BB.

Maybe one needs to shift perspective from us to them. Meaning, if we are the island, we now consist of X camps, each having Y troops (including Bosses) giving us a total "defense" of T. Or at least that was in my head when I went to bed and was going to do some random numbers to see how it would work out, _but_

Quote:

---

Only tier 3 colonies are taken into account to guarantee a fair ranking. Top ranked players are successful at PvP and play often, they will most likely have access to tier 3 colonies. It wouldn't be possible for tier 1 & 2 players to compete at all.

Efficiency is simple but there are some requirements:
-A minimum of 1,000 enemy units must be defeated
-Only fights from won expeditions are taken into account
If the above conditions are met, just divide the amount of defeated (directly or not) enemy units by the amount of units lost by the player.

---

has just made the entire point moot for me and will therefore not waste another minute on this Efficiency stuff.
Reason follows, if you can just tailor your efficiency to the epeen you like, it's just about as useful as not having it at all. On the other hand, it does point out players who know more than your average Joe, simply for being able to tell the difficulty of the maps apart and cherry picking their colonies for the Efficiency stat. Disregard the "cheating" you can to bump your indirect kill numbers with being able to backdoor attack a number of leaders from the now cleared other direction.

I'm also failing to see the logic behind "Only tier 3 colonies are taken into account to guarantee a fair ranking.". Aside from being able to make another selection for "T1/T2/T3" colonies in the rankings, by no means I see where the unfair starts for including T1 and T2. Not to mention that real PvP is about competition, on all levels and not selective inclusion.
Although in games like Diablo, a new character simply won't be able to compete with a L99 regardless how Pro the player is by default and would therefore need levelbrackets for fairness, we simply do _not_ have this problem with TSO.
Then we got ego shooters, who have access to the same stuff right off the get go and player skill is the determining factor.

Although TSO isn't an ego shooter, the conditions about having an equal footing right from the get go is pretty much as fair as I can tell in regards to competitiveness.
Am I saying you can face value compare T3 players to T1 players? No.
Am I saying you can face value compare 2 players with the same conditions (T1/T2/T3) to one another? Oh yea.

What we are really missing in the rankings are
a) IQ level of the player
b) the amount a player has been trolled by BB with "pvp"
c) Cherry picking skills

To block? or not to block? That is the question.
The bottom line for me is to maximize the PvP XP per weapon loss, since the weapon production is the bottleneck in the process and my primary goal is to get the second armory as quickly as possible. Blocking vs not blocking does not appear to significantly affect the PvP XP per loss. However, successfully defending a colony can provide extra PvP XP. Net result is that taking a colony via blocking will ultimately provide the most efficient way of getting PvP XP. If I mess up a block and get intercepted, rather than trying to retreat (which rarely turns out good) I simply cancel the expedition and cut my losses. For now, I have stopped trying to determine the specific details about how the XP and valor points are calculated. It seems that there are some multipliers used for different tiers and different size colonies.
Just my 2 cents...

Now that I've learned indirect kills don't count toward XP, blocking only makes sense to me as a measure to conserve losses. If I'm going to get more XP for attacking a camp than blocking it, why block.... unless I'm getting close to troop limits. It might not be a significant amount of difference in XP per expedition, but dropping pocket change in a jar every day adds up pretty quickly =) Good luck SirSitzalot, on reaching level 10!

All good points, and it certainly does add up. Good luck to you too Perwyn!