Jump to content

Photo

Player Level Is Average Of All Survivors Level

level leader

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1
President Bongo

President Bongo
  • 118 posts

Using the Leader as the 'level' of a player seems inaccurate. When my Leader achieved level 50 my other survivors were still level 40. There's a discernible difference between Level 50 + 9 Level 40's and 10 x Level 50. It would be more accurate to make the Player level the AVERAGE of all Survivors, after there are 10 Survivors. One decimal places would be accurate enough.

 

For example my Survivors are:  Leader 50, Medic 48, 2 x Fighter 46, 4 x Scavenger 47, Recon 47, Engineer 47,  which would be 47.2 when averaged. There would need to be some minor tweaking to the Raid rules, like the ability to attack players below one's level, by at least 3 or 4 levels.

 

(I'm just bored waiting for my Survivors to return,,,)

 

 


  • 0

#2
Ayshford

Ayshford
  • 339 posts

some change would be nice. But with the averaging system you suggest people could have their leader be a godlike beast by only letting him level up. Potentially you could have a lvl 50 leader with 9 lvl 10 survivors... making them lvl 14. That lvl 50 leader could then don fully upgraded armor and uni PSG and wipe every compound in their range with out even trying.


  • 4

#3
JHPinto

JHPinto
  • 619 posts

I almost absolutely avoid using the Leader, so that all xp points that he receives are at least also collected by one or some of the other survivors. 

That helps to avoid that the gap becomes too large, but even so it's impossible to keep things as balanced as I would like.

 

The only way to solve this would be having a way to give xp to survivors that would not go to the leader. I've once suggested that the training yard could be used to level up survivors. The leader would not be available to that and no survivor would be allowed to go above the leader's level. Of course that leveling up a survivor would make him unavailable for a few days, and it could also cost some fuel. 


  • 2

#4
Zingman

Zingman
  • 3,180 posts

Yeah... no.

 

It makes sense at level 32+, doesn't make sense at all below that.

 

Most extreme example(s).

 

Leader is level 6, fighter at Level 5, scavenger at level 3 -- average 4.33

 

So even though the leader is level 6, South Trenton (Level 5) is locked

 

Now say the leader is 9, fighter at 7, scavenger and recon at 6 -- average 7

 

So the player has access to Riverside (level 7) but not Stadium (level 9).  Now say they add a survivor (level 6).  The new average would be less than 7 and they'd lose access to Riverside.

 

 

When you add in quality of gear, player/survivor level by itself doesn't amount to a lot and is not a good indicator of the quality of defense  -- especially at higher levels.

 

This leads me to think "keep it simple" and keep the existing system as is.


  • 0

#5
President Bongo

President Bongo
  • 118 posts

some change would be nice. But with the averaging system you suggest people could have their leader be a godlike beast by only letting him level up. Potentially you could have a lvl 50 leader with 9 lvl 10 survivors... making them lvl 14. That lvl 50 leader could then don fully upgraded armor and uni PSG and wipe every compound in their range with out even trying.

 

Wow I'm not that devious, but you do have a point. How long would it take to level your leader to 50 doing one man missions? How much can you raid level 14 people with your level 50 leader before they level up past you? Do level 14 people have anything to steal?

 

Two easy solutions would be a weighted average, and experience sharing (say 10%) between the Leader and all other survivors.

 

---

 

I meant it mostly for raiding calculations. I forgot the that areas are 'locked' at low levels. Simple solution: Remove the locks based on level. If you can survive the level you can do the level. :P

 

(I'm still bored, still waiting for my Survivors to return (again) )


Edited by President Bongo, 02 December 2013 - 08:27 PM.

  • 0

#6
Njaelic

Njaelic
  • 185 posts

I like the idea but it is just necessary, because of the massiv exp-gain of the leader in comparision to the other survivors ^^

 

In matter of the problem with the over-leveled leader, maybe you just weight the survivors different in average, e.g. 50% Leader, 50% surviors, for Leader LvL 50 und 9 Surviors with LvL 14, the average would be 32 in this case (if I calculated correctly).

 

 

I almost absolutely avoid using the Leader, so that all xp points that he receives are at least also collected by one or some of the other survivors. 

That helps to avoid that the gap becomes too large, but even so it's impossible to keep things as balanced as I would like.

 

The only way to solve this would be having a way to give xp to survivors that would not go to the leader. I've once suggested that the training yard could be used to level up survivors. The leader would not be available to that and no survivor would be allowed to go above the leader's level. Of course that leveling up a survivor would make him unavailable for a few days, and it could also cost some fuel. 

 

I made a suggestion, which could help with it too: http://forum.conarti...-book-stubborn/ But I like the idea with the trainingcenter and would be the first to use it :)


  • 0

#7
TheRyderShotgun

TheRyderShotgun
  • 966 posts

how to exploit this system:

 

1. upgrade leader to lvl 50(obviously) 

2. use training center to lower the lvl of other survivors, leaving out some(preferably recons)

3. now the average lvl has been lowered. 

4. "HEY-LO LVL 5 FRIEND! SAY HELLO TO LVL 3 ENGIE, LVL 2 MEDIC, LVL 48 RECON AND LVL 50 LEADER!!! HAVE FUN, NOW!!!" 


  • 0

#8
Njaelic

Njaelic
  • 185 posts

how to exploit this system:

 

I did some quick Excel-calculation:

 

1) Weighting: 50% Leader, 50% Survivors

* Leader 50, all Suvis LvL 1 >> Average 25,5

* Leader 50, Suvis 1x 50, 8x 1 >> Average 28,2

 

2) Weighting: 2/3 Leader, 1/3 Survivors

* Leader 50, all Suvis LvL 1 >> Average 33,7

* Leader 50, Suvis 1x 50, 8x1 >> Average 35,5

 

Imo if you don't treat all Surviors equal and consider the special role of the leader, this system would be a fair tool to indicate the lvl.


  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: level, leader