Killing lower tier units gives more xp than killing higher tier units?

Users who are viewing this thread

It has been my experience that for what concerns combat skills you get more experience the more damage you deal. I haven't been able to test this properly, and I am not even sure how one would go about doing this in a controlled manner, but that seems to be the way it works. If that is true, that would mean that you get more experience fighting rabble (i.e. unarmored units) than you get from seasoned elite troops. This because higher level troops have armor, armor mitigates the damage you inflict, which in turns lowers the experience you get from them.

This obviously wouldn't make any sense and would need to be addressed. I am wondering if my fellow players have noticed the same thing?
 
I don't get why don't they just use it how warband does it. The better the npc you kill the more xp you get.

For gaining proficiency same as well. Just hit people, the higher level your proficiency is the harder it is to grow.
 
XP gain is quite low for myself, my army and my companions. For the longest time I wondered if companions actually leveled up or not. I no longer take recruits as soldiers as it takes to long to level them past the footman (level 2) stage. XP gain is just too stingy across the board.
 
Armor just subtracts damage, no?

If I do 75 damage to a head, and they're wearing a 23 armor helmet it should result in roughly 52 damage done (+DMG from perks /other factors).
If it's 1:1 conversion that's 52xp points.

A person usually has 100 HP, I think, so whether their armor mitigates or not doesn't matter, as you can at most get 100xp out of any given enemy, but it takes more hits to get that XP from a high tier enemy due to their mitigation (which is offset if you use something like a Lance or polearm that's going to One-hit kill them anyway).

It's just faster to farm low tier enemies that don't mitigate your damage (e.g.1-3 swings to get 100xp Vs 2-4), until you get to the point where pretty much everything dies in 1-2 hits.

But per-enemy (not accounting for additional time) all enemies should be awarding the same amount of xp?
 
There certainly problems with exp right now. I also feel like I get a big boost from a kill, which is annoying since with mounted archery you're often getting lots of weaker shots. I also notice my riding skill improves much more from shooting on horseback when I'm still (more damage) then the bow skill does, even though I have a higher learning rate for bow.

To me it seems like almost everything about skills/exp/perks is just in a demo/idea stage still. The bare minimum to show how their ideas could work, but unfinished (many perks not coded) and untested (perks not good enough/useful for actual gameplay).

I'm constantly revamping m,y idea of how a main character should be built and leveled, but I'm also hoping for big sweeping changes to the skill/perk system.
Right now it's bend over backwards struggle to get anything useful from perks and ALSO gain exp to get more levels.
 
Weird, I feel like my riding improves more when I'm moving fast and shooting because I thought that was how it worked. Example, riding and bow shot through the roof when I was just circling big balls of looters.
 
You do get more xp for killing stronger enemies, you get extra landing killing blow, HP, target mounted or is hero or not, shot difficulty also affect experience.
 
How do you know that? Anyway I was thinking more about melee.

How do you know you're not? You haven't done any testing. It definitely seems to me that I'm getting more XP killing high level units.

Granted, if you're in melee killing 10+ rabble compared to 1 or 2 elites, it might even out. But you haven't even done any testing lol.
 
I don't get why don't they just use it how warband does it. The better the npc you kill the more xp you get.

For gaining proficiency same as well. Just hit people, the higher level your proficiency is the harder it is to grow.
The warband system was flawed as it required you and your soldiers to kill enemies for XP, instead of just hitting them. In Bannerlord killing enemies is obsolete, which is a good change.
But, yeah hitting higher tier troops and also hitting smaller targets, like head and neck should also be rewarded more.
 
How do you know you're not? You haven't done any testing. It definitely seems to me that I'm getting more XP killing high level units.

Granted, if you're in melee killing 10+ rabble compared to 1 or 2 elites, it might even out. But you haven't even done any testing lol.

I would love to do testing, but since you can not see your character skills during combat I just do not know how. Like you, I have an impression. I guess our impressions just differ? It is very noticeable in tournaments and the arena though. In the arena I don't notice a difference in xp gain from defeating a recruit or a crossbowman or any other unit.

Let me put it this way: in Warband I would gain several levels from defeating a part of Sea Raiders as a low level character. Here, if I manage to defeat a party of mountain bandits with one mounted highwayman, or a party of looters of similar size, I don't really see a difference in skill gain between the two.

There, that is the best test I can offer right now.
 
It has been my experience that for what concerns combat skills you get more experience the more damage you deal.

That may just be a symptom. In Warband skill increase was determined from the speed bonus or shot difficulty; damage bonus was also applied based on speed bonus, so an attack which generated the most chance of increasing a skill would also be the one which dealt the most damage. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a similar, if not the same, system at work here.
 
Back
Top Bottom