Sadly, I think the current XP system is a huge step back from AoW 3:

[Draxynnic]

If you don't consider opportunity cost, there's really no reason not to have it as an option. At worst, you could get so-called "pro" players insisting on it because it's "more skilled" (kind of like how the Starcraft 2 pros resist making more skills autocast because it makes the keybinds, macros, and APM that separates them from the common herd less important), but if the option is chosen at the start of the map for everyone and can't be changed, people who don't want that can just play their own games without it.

Opportunity cost, however, is a consideration. For Triumph to implement this would require Triumph to spend time implementing it that they could have spent working on something else. Based on the ratio of "agree" versus "respectfully disagree" on the OP, this is something that only about 10% of people looking at this thread and taking the step of "voting" through the agree/disagree system want... and this is something technical enough that the people who don't visit the forums (let alone this specific thread) are probably even less likely to care about. Odds are, there is something else that Triumph could do with their development time that's going to interest more than 10% of the player base.

 

[LemurFromTheId]

If you don't consider opportunity cost, there's really no reason not to have it as an option.

This is only (somewhat) true if the option that lets you influence the way XP is distributed actually gives you less XP in total than the option where XP is distributed evenly. Then it's a meaningful tradeoff between being able to level up specific units faster and leveling up more units overall.

 

[Jolly Joker]

With all due respect, but I don't think the people disagreeing have a clue about how this will develop in Planetfall. To give you a hint, let me show you some screens. I set up a medium map. Severe threat level, weak starting army, low starting resources, slow. I'm now at turn 18. Turn 14 I tried a battle with my two heroes alone and succeeded. Now it's turn 18, and after visiting a site that grants +50% XP I tried my hand on this little fight (See screen 1). As you can see, it's high risk: 3 T2s and 3 T3s. My two heroes are just modded with Nanite Injectors, that's it. However, come the battle, and with some support from orbit, I got the desired result (See screen 2). .

My heroes made 23 XP each with that fight. Look at them now: Keep in mind, I hired hero 2 on turn 10 with 0 XP. So you can see, that the gal made 60 XP since then (and commander guy as well).

Is that really better than it was in AoW 3? I mean, this feels a lot more counter-intuitive than allocating XP via battle actions, because you simply don't let your troops onto the battlefield. And this is no balance problem, because no matter what you change, you'll always reach a point when you can start focussing the XP on where you want it, and then the snowball effect starts.

 

[Jolly Joker]

So clearly, even with this seemingly innocuous system the grind is there - of course only when you play competetively, that is. Playing for yourself, "grind" doesn't have to come into play. If you have fun, everything is fine. But that is true for AoW3 as well.

So. Do you still think, the following system wouldn't be better: Every unit has a FIXED XP value (as it has now). Every action involving two or more units would earn them a certain part of that, the kill earning the rest. Non-killing actions might stop giving XP, once a certain threshold would be reached, reserving a certain percentage of the XP for the kill. Additionally, you could limit all non-killing "XP actions" to earning you XP only once per battle...

 

[Entherian]

Is that really better than it was in AoW 3?

Yes. The answer you've been given, over and over, is yes. The majority of people here prefer this. It may feel more counter-intuitive to you, and you may find all sorts of ways to minmax it and abuse it and cheese it and turn your commander and hero units into rampaging demigods that fear nothing and eat bullets, but the thing you have to face is that you're in the minority here. We don't want to feel like we're handicapping ourselves by not doing manual combat every single time. We want to focus on unit abilities and cover and facing, not on kiting enemy units so that our XP-starved supports and T4s can get the kills they need.

So go ahead. Find ways to game the system. Turn Planetfall into Herofall. Go nuts. Have at it. Enjoy yourself!

And if it really, really, really bothers you that the XP system doesn't work like it did in AoW3, or like it did in whatever heavily-modded version of AoW3 you played that is the "true, optimal" version of AoW3 in your mind, that's what modding is for, friend. Mod this game to your heart's content.

Okay?

 

[Ericridge]

Jollyjoker, you've been at this for four years now or so. You treat this game as some kind of insane exp grind. I don't. You're the one suffering. Are you masochist or what? You're the one deliberately gaming the game. That's fine, but don't force your vision of planetfall onto our games.

What you are showing us is that you made deliberate choice and action to ensure that heroes get crazy amount of experience in a battle.

Now let us ask you this, was you forced to do this at gunpoint? If yes, please seek help to dispatch the guy holding you hostage at keyboard so that you can be free at last.
If no, come to the terms that you are an min maxer, I don't mind that kind of thing I minmax in the past, especially for world of warcraft long time ago to ensure my toon had perfect raid stats.

I'm not soloing nodes with just two heroes. I give them armies and smash the nodes. Have fun!

 

[Ethorin]

...Jolly... that seems much more like "I'm so good at the tac combat I can make wacky stuff happen"... I'm quite confident in telling you in a similar situation I'd lose terribly.

That's not abuse, that's actual skill expression.

 

[Draxynnic]

This is only (somewhat) true if the option that lets you influence the way XP is distributed actually gives you less XP in total than the option where XP is distributed evenly. Then it's a meaningful tradeoff between being able to level up specific units faster and leveling up more units overall.

Missed my point. What I meant is that you don't consider the opportunity cost of whatever Triumph could have been working on instead of programming the option, there's really no reason not to have it as an option set at the start of the game for the people who want to play the game that way.

As long as it's an option that can be turned off at the start of a game, having the option doesn't hurt the people who don't like it (they can just have it turned off, after all).

The problem is, of course, that it would require dev time to implement, which could be time that could be spent implementing something that will interest more than (checks current numbers) 6 out of 44 people (counting JJ as the sixth person who is interested, and myself as the 38th person who isn't).

 

[Entherian]

Missed my point. What I meant is that you don't consider the opportunity cost of whatever Triumph could have been working on instead of programming the option, there's really no reason not to have it as an option set at the start of the game for the people who want to play the game that way.

As long as it's an option that can be turned off at the start of a game, having the option doesn't hurt the people who don't like it (they can just have it turned off, after all).

The problem is, of course, that it would require dev time to implement, which could be time that could be spent implementing something that will interest more than (checks current numbers) 6 out of 44 people (counting JJ as the sixth person who is interested, and myself as the 38th person who isn't).

If I want to play competitively, and competitive play has come to a consensus that XP Mode 1 is the better option for competitive play, I am forced to use XP Mode 1 whether I prefer that or not. If my friends are split between preferring XP Mode 1 and XP Mode 2, that means that during mixed matches between friends, some of these friends are going to have to play with the XP Mode they dislike or they simply can't play with their friends on the other side of the split. So even if there's no opportunity cost, there's still downsides to having it just "as an option".

...Jolly... that seems much more like "I'm so good at the tac combat I can make wacky stuff happen"... I'm quite confident in telling you in a similar situation I'd lose terribly.

That's not abuse, that's actual skill expression.

It's kind of both. It's someone knowing how to play the game in the precise way to allow them to fight groups with just two hero units, and also someone using this knowledge specifically to give those hero units all the XP. And I bet it involved a lot of running and kiting too, which...

 

[Jolly Joker]

When people become hostile, it's a sure indication a nerve was hit.

I never started the XP grind in AoW 3. That did others who were way better in it than I could ever be. Keep in mind, it would only force your hand when you were playing competetively. The same thing will happen here. So that simply means, that there is no difference. You will play relaxed and have fun, but when you start playing competitively, you'll have to check whether you'll face relaxed guys who just want to play or whether you face grinders.

Which means, the switch didn't work, at least not as expected, and holding on to that illusion seems somewhat irrational.

@Ethorin

I'd like to accept the compliment, but I did nothing special, just used my limited operations and the strength of the heroes. It wasn't that tricky.

 

[Arunvik]

When playing planetfall, I often find myself instinctually managing attack orders to make sure my heroes get the killing blow, and when I realize that I don't need to do that anymore, the thought that runs through my head is not "oh no, a system that used to provide tactical depth is now missing", it's "good riddance".

Managing xp allocation did provide some tactical depth, but to me at least, it was never fun. Not just because it was a micromanagey grind, but also because it provides goals that can run counter to your main goal of fighting the battle effectively.

For instance you can get a situation where unit A applies a debuff with its attack that enables unit B to kill the target. But you want unit A to get the experience for the kill, so you attack with unit B first. But since the debuff wasn't applied, unit B doesn't deal enough damage to allow unit A to finish it off. So you now have to bring in unit C. But unit C can't be allowed to attack 3 times, because that would outright kill the target. So you march unit C back and forth for a bit until it only has one action point left, and then you attack, allowing unit A to get the kill.

I don't mind these sorts of tactical considerations being removed.

 

[Entherian]

Keep in mind, it would only force your hand when you were playing competetively. The same thing will happen here. So that simply means, that there is no difference. You will play relaxed and have fun, but when you start playing competitively, you'll have to check whether you'll face relaxed guys who just want to play or whether you face grinders.

You're ignoring the fact that even when playing offline, in single-player, if you want your supports and late-game units to gain XP at a reasonable rate, you still have to baby them unduly.

You're also ignoring that while you're investing all this time and effort into babying your hero units, other players can feed XP to their other units, giving them increased stats as well.

But again: if you really want to play this way, go ahead! Play this way! And if you really want to mod in your own custom XP system, go ahead! Mod in your own custom XP system!

You have your answer, man. Move on, okay?

 

[LemurFromTheId]

Missed my point. What I meant is that you don't consider the opportunity cost of whatever Triumph could have been working on instead of programming the option, there's really no reason not to have it as an option set at the start of the game for the people who want to play the game that way.

As long as it's an option that can be turned off at the start of a game, having the option doesn't hurt the people who don't like it (they can just have it turned off, after all).

Nope, you missed my point. I know what "opportunity cost" means; this isn't about that.

If there's an option that lets players accumulate potentially more XP and affect its distribution by micromanaging their units in tactical combat, then I'm being penalised for not picking that option, because the other option doesn't offer a comparative mechanical benefit, only the convenience of not having to worry about XP management. I'm still picking the option with equal XP distribution, but it hurts my enjoyment of the game when I know that I'm limiting myself by doing so.

So yes, having the option does "hurt" people who have it turned off.

 

[Lord of Riva]

Which means, the switch didn't work, at least not as expected, and holding on to that illusion seems somewhat irrational.

It, again, is a different system. Maybe it would simply be more beneficial to suggest an idea for the current system to avoid this.

like a only giving the xp to the combatants as if the stack was a full stack, that would instantly solve the issue here, without changing the system to something that is grindy.

the only issue i see with this would be that there SHOULD be a reward for tactical proficiency.

 

[Jolly Joker]

Okay, guys, I had to put in some mindless chores and had time to think everything through, and, lo and behold, I revise my opinion and thank you all for your participation.

This forced me into trying stuff and looking into things, which in turn led to the realization that the new system is much simpler than the old one, but offers the player still more than reasonable and much fairer options to allocate XP the way they want, simply by not only deciding WHICH units you should send into battle, but also HOW MANY, and since it's a matter of making the battles harder when you want to focus XP to certain units, but also a matter of making the battles easier (and faster via autocombat), when you want to spread a maximum XP on as many units as possible, all in all the new system seems to offer enough and in a simpler and fairer manner. So it's no huge step back, if any step back at all, and as a simplification it's probably a good decision.

Thanks again for participating - I will also take back my suggestion in the suggestion thread.

 

[Lord Lambert]

Well colour me shocked. Tis rare to see this kind of outcome on a debate on an internet forum.

 

[LemurFromTheId]

Well colour me shocked. Tis rare to see this kind of outcome on a debate on an internet forum.

Kinda makes the whole endeavour seem rather pointless, what with no proper flamewar, some random bans and an eventual lock.

 

[Lord Lambert]

Kinda makes the whole endeavour seem rather pointless, what with no proper flamewar, some random bans and an eventual lock.

The popcorn I have consumed has turned to ash in my mouth

 

[Entherian]

Kinda makes the whole endeavour seem rather pointless, what with no proper flamewar, some random bans and an eventual lock.

Oh, were we supposed to

uh

n-no! you're a bad dog!

... sorry, I'm bad at this.

 

[Draxynnic]

Nope, you missed my point. I know what "opportunity cost" means; this isn't about that.

If there's an option that lets players accumulate potentially more XP and affect its distribution by micromanaging their units in tactical combat, then I'm being penalised for not picking that option, because the other option doesn't offer a comparative mechanical benefit, only the convenience of not having to worry about XP management. I'm still picking the option with equal XP distribution, but it hurts my enjoyment of the game when I know that I'm limiting myself by doing so.

So yes, having the option does "hurt" people who have it turned off.

Eh. If it's chosen at the start of a game, it's no different to "penalising" yourself by setting a higher difficulty, or by turning off heroes revising if their side wins, or not using cheats, or any number of ways one could make a game easier. Set the game parameters you consider to have the right amount of fun and challenge and go for it.

The thread appears to have reached consensus, however, so there's little point continuing to debate around the edges. My main point was that there wasn't really the demand to justify developer attention.