Leadership XP formula is broken

Currently viewing this thread:

Lord Irontoe

Master Knight
Hey, thanks for the questions!
  1. Morale matters because if it did not one can just fill up bandit troops to their party and not care about the party at all and by simply waiting and paying wages one can gain roguery experience.
  2. You can, it is similar to roguery and it requires at least 75 morale to gain experience for leadership for each party member you have. Formula is (Morale-70) x Total Man Count x 0.01
  3. Because the current design prioritizes the management aspects for governors and therefore rewards stewardship experience to them. However, it might be expanded to award engineering skill as well as it makes sense.

I know this has already been discussed ad nauseum, but I just saw this post from last month showing the actual leadership xp gain formula and I thought it was interesting, but not in a good way. I'm curious how you guys decide on the values for formulas like this:

(Morale-70) x Total Man Count x 0.01

Putting this formula into practice, let's say you're leading a party of 100 with morale of 75, that's (75-70) x 100 x 0.01 for a whopping total of 5xp/day

Best case scenario: 300 man party, 100 morale – (100-70) x 300 x 0.01 = 90xp/day

Assuming this guy's calculations are correct, it takes a total of 382,059 xp to get to 100 leadership skill (its not actually that high in practice since you don't start at 0, but the early skill points are the cheapest in xp cost, so I suspect the actual total isn't too far off). So in other words, it would take over 4,000 days of constantly leading a massive party with perfect morale to level leadership up to 100 if you were to rely on just the passive xp from leading troops. Forget about amassing the 7.3 million+ xp required to get to level 250.

And the xp gains don't scale up at all, since they're based on raw headcount. The xp formula for leading armies is entirely different and its based on troop tier (Army Strength x Morale x 0.0004), so at least you're rewarded more for your elite troops. Why doesn't the regular formula use party strength instead of raw headcount?

These numbers make zero sense when you relate them to the amounts of xp needed to level skill points. Its as if somebody looked at the xp requirements for skills below 50 and based the gains on those figures, forgetting that the requirements increase exponentially as they go up to where you're looking at tens of thousands of xp per skill point when you're over 100. Leadership needs an entirely new formula that takes troop tiers into account and scales somewhat with the level requirements so that its actually possible to reach the high skill levels before the heat death of the universe.
 

Aurex

Regular
WB
Yeah, a lot of skills don't make a lick of sense right now. Smithing has been utterly broken since day one, just to point out the most "famous" broken perk tree. Scouting is also still absurd in how slowly it goes up.
 
Yeah, a lot of skills don't make a lick of sense right now. Smithing has been utterly broken since day one, just to point out the most "famous" broken perk tree. Scouting is also still absurd in how slowly it goes up.
But we’re almost out of EA, just a little tweaking and a little balancing.
 
Yeah, a lot of skills don't make a lick of sense right now. Smithing has been utterly broken since day one, just to point out the most "famous" broken perk tree. Scouting is also still absurd in how slowly it goes up.
The smithing guy is on vacation, just another 6 months and he will be back.
 
Huge +1 to this. 1.5.10 did help in the fact you aren't punished for leveling up and your learning rate does not drop off as drastically as it did, until it does. However Steward is calculated would be ideal for Tactics and Leadership, I feel you can get to 250 Stewardship with all food types pretty fast.

They also soft-nerfed Smithing with the cost rebalance for items but really just messed up the economy even more, and who knows if that system will ever be revisited.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Assuming this guy's calculations are correct, it takes a total of 382,059 xp to get to 100 leadership skill (its not actually that high in practice since you don't start at 0, but the early skill points are the cheapest in xp cost, so I suspect the actual total isn't too far off). So in other words, it would take over 4,000 days of constantly leading a massive party with perfect morale to level leadership up to 100 if you were to rely on just the passive xp from leading troops.
I'm pretty sure that is outdated because I have Leadership 120ish without ever leading armies (never joined a faction).

Scouting is also still absurd in how slowly it goes up.
Ehhh... Scouting is one of the skills you can max in under ten years. I've never had a problem hitting max Scouting.
 
So in other words, it would take over 4,000 days of constantly leading a massive party with perfect morale to level leadership up to 100 if you were to rely on just the passive xp from leading troops. Forget about amassing the 7.3 million+ xp required to get to level 250.
Oh and then you die! ☠️
Very important for discussing the slow finicky skills like leadership (without early and constant armies) and medicine.
You take several decades to get a useful amount and then you die. It's a bad deal. Even leading armies forever trying to go for a Soc build and have the max tier perks takes too long to be useful.... because then you die!

I understand the idea that the player making armies alone would be too powerful, but I can also crush a faction alone anyways, so it's just locking out useful perks for an idea of balance that doesn't even exist.

And the xp gains don't scale up at all, since they're based on raw headcount. The xp formula for leading armies is entirely different and its based on troop tier (Army Strength x Morale x 0.0004), so at least you're rewarded more for your elite troops. Why doesn't the regular formula use party strength instead of raw headcount?
Yeah for real. This should be the bare minimum to at least let us benefit with a bonus from an elite force and hopefully reach the mid tier perks in a timely manner. I don't even care about veteran's respect anymore but I want leader of the masses!

Huge +1 to this. 1.5.10 did help in the fact you aren't punished for leveling up and your learning rate does not drop off as drastically as it did, until it does.
It's defiantly noticeable but it still feels bad to look at 5fp in leadership and spend 1k days barely getting it to 75 (no army game). Really makes you wonder why steward levels so smoothly? Could they just have missed decimal and it was supposed to be slow as **** too?

Yeah, a lot of skills don't make a lick of sense right now. Smithing has been utterly broken since day one, just to point out the most "famous" broken perk tree. Scouting is also still absurd in how slowly it goes up.
Have you tried scouting on 1.5.10? To me it seems decent, however on 1.5.9 it was slow as ****, I think there is a bug with tracks or something.
 
yea, some things level up very very very slowly, where as others level up very very very fast. The best way to level up leadership is just raise an army and just run around doing nothing. You will gain a skill level a day just about.
 
Top Bottom