Progress system for expedition islands.

Something went really wrong with the XP for expedition islands. Really wrong.

BB invited us to do blocks - but blocks was made useless by the XP system. You only get XP for enemies you kill.

Either it is a new german logic - or the nice girls on that backstage video has NO clue how normal adventures works.

Kill the leader and get XP for all the camps that goes down - that is how normal adventues works. But not on expedition islands.

The horrible dev's lost the overview totally - I am NOT in awe.

Now it is like this: Do not worry about XP's - it is only a matter of losing as many troops as possible. What a bore.

Using support is even more "fun" - they are clueless of the matter and thrill you with a.....bleeeh.

Get the thing right - or hand it over to someone that has actually played the game - ty.

...and the beat goes on! :D

Wait?!?!?! wardog doesn't like something about "expeditions"? no way

Lol, yeah, Troll-Phu, that was pretty funny. It just shows that no matter what happens in the new expedition option of TSO, not everyone will be happy.

They were so funky from the start, I just don't do them. Perhaps, when I have so many resources, there is nothing else to do, I may poke around a bit in it just to waste some time (and lots of resources); until then, I'll stick to the adv and ft, with an occasional scenario.

There are plenty of advs I haven't even done once till date..
I'll be busy for a long time, before touching PVP..
I do wish they add more variety on normal adventures... The regular advs now look even more awesome in front of PvP

Bet nobody expected me to show up! :p

All kidding aside, I was thinking, like Wardog, that XP was being based on my losses (HuH?), so started tracking my losses, enemy losses (extracted from the efficiency rankings page) and experience gained.

Here's what I've found out.

My losses - enemy losses - experience
1> 931 - 3925 - 3816
2> 934 - 3885 - 3618
3> 1677 - 5336 - 7514
4> 1722 - 4174 - 7074
5> 1905 - 6537 - 8056

Based on these results it seems to me that the experience calculation is based on the number of enemy killed, not on my casualties.

If having higher casualties in my army gave more experience then lines 2 & 4 should have higher experience than 1 & 3, which they don't. In lines 2 & 4 I killed less enemies but had higher casualties so my experience went down, as it should have.

I'm also finding out (see line 5) that if I can manage to get behind leader camps and take them out without touching many camps in that sector, enemy losses are higher and so is my experience, much the same as in adventures. I still haven't figured out how XP relates to specific enemy units, maybe never will, but I think those nice German ladies did OK.

So, what I've found...

I went to Test Sever and killed a few random troops, canceled, checked XP again, rinse and repeat until I had a couple numbers.

Bandit Recruit 1 XP
Bandit Bowman 2 XP
Bandit Cavalry 2 XP
Thug 2 XP

Merc Charger 2 XP
Merc Duel 2 XP
Merc Infantry 2 XP
Bert 50 XP

With those numbers, I then actually did a proper attack.

C1 80 Thugs
C2 80 Bowman
C3 80 Cavalry
C4 60 Merc Cavalry
L1 40 Bowman/40Cavalry/Bert

That would be 570 XP (+ Bert which I didn't have at that time, aka 620 XP total then) I should've gotten assuming our position that if leader dead = all camps razed and XP credited.
However, I did get 380 XP once I took over L1 and canceled the Expedition.

I killed C1 (160 XP) and L1 (80+80+[50]) and the blocks killed 5 units in total, netting me 10 XP. Because I got 380, I deduct my 10 blocking units, the 160 for C1 and 160 for L1, leaving me with 50 XP left, which I therefore concluded to be Bert.

So I got a total of 380 XP, all of which I have killed, and not the 620 XP which we'd have expected for killing the leader and getting credited the other camps for that sector.

Nice find Wardog, overall I didn't pay much attention to it simply because causing myself more losses for that minimal gain in colony yield just didn't cut it from a costbenefit standpoint. Which I automatically "converted" to "not bothering to take out more camps than I need in the first place, as "pvp" progression is utterly pointless and will come anyway.

Thanks for the numbers Ceruhe. Knowing what each unit nets is very helpful. So apparently we're not getting xp for extra camps in a sector that go down with the leader. The increase I'm seeing by taking out extra leaders is only for the kills involved. Good to know and thanks again.

Edited after more coffee:

....... but wait!! How are people getting efficiency rates of 6 and higher in the worldwide rankings then? There's only so far you can go by sending the right amount of units against a given camp. If you send 100 cav against 120 bowman, you lose 54. If you send 65, you lose 54. If you send the minimum of 61 you lose 59. Anything lower and you lose the battle. The entire system works more or less the same with slight variations on the numbers. So take 120 / 54 = 2.22. How do efficiency rankings hit higher if we're not getting credit for unattacked camps that go down with a leader? In your research on the test server Ceruhe, you canceled the expedition after one sector. That probably has some bearing on the outcome. We need more data! Imma keep on tracking my results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perwyn

How do efficiency rankings hit higher if we're not getting credit for unattacked camps that go down with a leader?

---

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

BB_Endesmor

I haven't really looked at the rankings yet whatsoever, matter of fact, as they are only for Tier 3 in the first place, I've been right off the bat not interested in them.

However, if I were to simply imply my warped interpretation of efficiency and account for whatever triangular soccerballs and what have you as well...

Efficiency simply on loss vs limit rather than loss vs defeated. Not accounting for anything else, such as Marshalls and Medipacks.
Lemme try to explain, without having attempted to fact check if it could be the case...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.

So we assume that troop allowance is 1'000.
We assume that 500 deaths to 1'000 limit makes this an Efficiency of 2.
We assume that 250 deaths to 1'000 limit makes this an Efficiency of 4.
We assume that someone steamrolls from landingzone to Map Boss, direct path with whatever resistance and racks up 800 losses. We assume him to have 1.25 Efficiency now.
We assume that someone steamsrolls from landingzone to Map Boss, direct path with least resitance and racks up 650 losses. We assume him to have 1.54 Efficiency now.
We assume that a Pro player actually looked at the map, the optimal paths, blocks, various combinations and takes down the Map Boss having incurred 180 losses. We assume him to have an Efficiency of 5.56

Going with that train of assumptions, the real "tweak" to your efficiency is then with blocks, a few more or less, which (let's say 1000/191= 5.24) can have a rather decent impact. This is of course now assuming we have players on the same kind of skill curve, rather than pro vs noob.

Though, because I already said I didn't look at the rankings at all, but did just for the sakes of it... (Staging/Efficiency)
It kinda already looks like my assumptions steer wrong, but it may already be really just a clear cut loss vs defeated while accounting for the amount of colonies you did take over.
As in...let's go with 5.
1) Take 5 arbitrary numbers ranging 150-220. Add them up, divide by 5, get your average/efficiency.
2) Take 5 arbitrary numbers ranging 150-220. Add them up, divide by 5, get your average/efficiency.
3) Compare 1) and 2), voila?

Although we all incurr "If you send 100 cav against 120 bowman, you lose 54. If you send 65, you lose 54." losses, not everyone may make the same calls.
Same calls being...uh, what do we have....
- Fighting a mixed camp and having forgot/being to slow to select the rock for the scissor.
- Making a (difficult/exotic) block work. See below.
- Skipping a camp through the block. Example I've had an island where I could block 3 camps and kill L1, then block 1 camp and kill Map boss, when in actuality I could've blocked the initial same 3 camps form L1 and go directly for the Map Boss, because they shared 1 camp
- Didn't go for the optimal path (almost happened to by going by sheer looks and "that's obviously the route" when the path pretty much made him "walk on water" and bypass a mountain range instead.
- Intentional suicide by intentional intercept to kill a 80 Bandit (30 dmg) camp instead of a 100 Merc Infantry camp (35 dmg). While killing the Bandit camp loses alot less troops and gets your General killed (mainly because you can't be certain if, once he has won, the Gen won't be insta teleport intercepted and fight the next camp right away...which we know is an issue on overlapping intercepts), it may also be the reason why you then get to block the 100 Merc Camp instead and block that with alot fewer troops. Simple math here, 100 Mercs + Bandit Block = Higher losses than 80 Bandits + Merc Block.


So by your assumtpion that we all need the same amount of troops to kill XYZ being correct, you are mostly forgetting about the individual player making individual and situational decisions. Everyone who has played a handful of Expedtions already knows there are "better" and "worse" maps, and those maps then on top of that then still have "better" and "worse" positions. And I totally don't know how the system/rankings accounts for that. If I were to cherry pick all the easiest maps ever, while being able to toss away bad maps on the side with no effect, efficiency then carries close to 0 value in meaning.

Let's assume again... :)
1) Perfect Island, attack and taken.
2) Perfect Island MKII, attack and taken.
3) Bad island, no attack and cancelled.
4) Perfect Island, attack and taken.
5) Bad island, no attack and cancelled.

In situation 3) and 5), did the system account for "an invasion but no attack" or not? Because if your Efficiency is simply based on the conditions I elaborated up there, 3) and 5) would _not_ be accounted for in any way whatsoever, as no troops lost and no troops defeated wouldn't change your numbers, _unless_ it does account for cancelled Expeditions too. Then again, I'm too tired to think how, as (5 arbitrary numbers /5 = average) and the same number /6 would yield a better Efficiency, which wouldn't make sense, not that I'd put that past BB.

Quote:

---

In your research on the test server Ceruhe, you canceled the expedition after one sector. That probably has some bearing on the outcome

---

I cancelled to get us the XP numbers so we had a start to verify Wardog's statement, up to a point where I had enough info to simply straight out being able to tell the exact of amount of XP that I certainly would get (killed troops), may get (bonus camps from the sector) and did get, which is just opening your mail and seeing either of those 2 numbers that you did predict to get. So cancelling after L1 wouldn't have done anything outside of what we were talking about in the first place. Just from memory it also doesn't appear that you get bonus XP for winning, or the sector bonus from the Map Boss either, but I haven't verified that, yet highly doubt it being the case and important to the stats.

Whatever it did in terms of Efficiency, beats me. As I'm not Tier 3 and ranked and likely never will be aside from still completing the Achievements (which they changed the conditions on at some point *grrrr*), I'm unlikely to find out by myself. JUst having checked the US rankins, Evil_J is up there, as a bunch are following his guides and many know how excellect and efficient (hint hint) they are, he might be able to chime in some more.

Anyway, off to bed~

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!

Quote:

---

why block....

---

Well, as you said, to conserve losses. We all know they aren't cheap nor fast to make, top that off with your colony loot and yield ranges anywhere from "massive red numbers to randomly lucky slight black numbers".

If we'd get the sector XP for taking down a leader, I'd at least consider taking optional sectors down if they fit into backdoor attacks or having enough leftover marshalls/medipacks to do so, but as there is no incentive to even do that, I'll just focus on taking down the map boss with as few losses as possible and hope I can max colony yield on the side, so that kick in the face only feels like a slap....and because we also have no real incentitive to even level up in the first place...meh, XP will come step by step regardless.

I create a table of exp vs weapon
http://i.imgur.com/6C7oaCC.jpg


The average of exp/weapon will depend on enemy composition, but I think 0.8 is a good enough number for easy calculation.

A. lvl 5 armory make 1440 weapons per day. which is 1440*0.8=1152 exp.
B. Total exp to reach lvl 10 to unlock another armory is 131,000, about 114 days of one nonstop, unbuffed armory.
C. Total exp from lvl 10 to reach lvl 30 is 1,352,450 , about 587 days of two nonstop, unbuffed armory.
D. From pure experience gain point of view, blocking will only waste weapons.
E. Even though the map boss give best exp/weapon, the camp usually require 2 waves, which will lower the average exp/weapon.
F. The perfect map would be full of roughneck and longbowman.....
U. Always use mercenary hard unit to defense your island, unless you want to help other player have better exp/weapon.
C. With unlimited weapons from trade, academy become bottleneck. 1200 units/day unbuffed academy means 1200*0.8*6=5760 exp/day.
K. 5760 exp per day means 257 days from lvl 1~30.
U. If you have unlimited weapons, unlimited x3 buff and premium, it reduce to 257/3/1.5=57 days

That's all I found.


---------------------------------------------

update:
I just found that blocking indeed has some advantage.
Example:

A mercenary hard camp (100 units) defend leader camp.

1. Without blocking, you loss 70 unit (420 weapons) to clear mercenary camp. You gain 300 exp. exp/weapon = 0.71

2. With blocking, assume using 5 heavy units. you loss those 5 heavy unit (15 weapons). but you save 405 weapon for better exp/weapon camp.
If you use those 405 weapon on other bandit easy camp (0.74) , you will still get 405*0.74=300 exp. It will be more if you fight bandit hard unit.

3. If you use elite to block, you definitely save weapon. I think this is what I will do after I get the 20000 valor point general from shop. valor point doesn't have much use after that.

summary: if you can block a hard mercenary camp that contain 100 unit with elite or less than 5 heavy unit, you can consider that.

Nice table Gibamou! Thanks for putting that up.

Outstanding analysis! But don't forget that you can instantly complete training in the academy and weapons in the armory for just a handful of gems. I'm just sayin'.
Otherwise, keep your academy full and buffed, buy lots of weapons, and don't waste your premium days on anything other than PvP.

anyway, I just reach lvl 10 today , got my 2nd armory.

don't have much motivation to continue now, maybe just to lvl 12, because lvl6 castle look much better than lvl5 castle.

Gratz on reaching lvl 10!

just update my previous post for new finding about blocking advantage.

Gibamou, I want to say thanks again for the table you made. Knowing the XP values of enemy troops I was able to choose the path with most experience gained last expedition I did. It was 9 camps, then a leader for less XP or 10 camps then a leader for a whole lot more. Your table rocks!

It help myself too, I used to love to see recruit and hate roughneck and longbowman, but now total opposite.
I used to think blocking with 10 heavy is good. now I don't do it anymore.

[QUOTE/]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[/QUOTE]

You are missing one important component there mate. Liking cats. It is obvious to me this is the missing variables you are searching for. If a player like cats than all the stats/xp/ranking goes up by 5-10%.

You guys and your tables, formulas and equations. Why would BB ask players to participate in the development of "pvp" the question: Do you like cats? Now you know:)

I love cats

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wimpy

I love cats

---

You are perfect material for a real "pvp" player Wimpy. GO put your name on the ranking boards:)

Hi everyone,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wardog-

Something went really wrong with the XP for expedition islands. Really wrong.

BB invited us to do blocks - but blocks was made useless by the XP system. You only get XP for enemies you kill.

---

I just wanted to let you know that we are looking into this. I will do my best to keep you updated.

Happy Settling!
BB_Endesmor

[QUOTE=Plumz;262032]You are perfect material for a real "pvp" player Wimpy. GO put your name on the ranking boards:)[/QUOTE

It will be a cold day in h....Oh nevermind.

Excellent Endesmor - that is good news. Tyvm for letting us all know. :)

Thanks BB_Endesmor for keeping us updated. You're the best!