Is it? I've only recorded the last 8 matches, of those my highest base xp was the most recent at 5756, still have the results up so here's a screenshot. Lowest recorded is 2934 (a short game where I didn't do very well). I've won 88% of those games, and earned battle hero awards in 88% of them, consistently placing in the top 3, top 5 on average, all as berlin soviets. I don't doubt your numbers, but what kind of performance are you giving to get that kind of average base?
When people say “pay to progress” they usually mean “pay to progress faster” or “pay to reduce the grind.” Pay to Progress is a car limited to half the speed limit unless you pay extra. What we’ve got is a car that starts, but won’t shift out of first unless you pay a little, and breaks landspeed records if you open your bank account to the company.
6.6k to 13.3k base XP seems reasonable for an experienced player who uses tanks and planes in their rotation. I can post screen shots of my last several games to illustrate what an average player can expect if that would help settle the matter between the 2 of you.
I can post them if you’re curious, but I don’t know how to link them to the triangle symbol like you did.
For the record, I consider myself an average player and just play for fun, hence only using T1 infantry squads.
Yes, so I sad 6-15 would be more reasonable. Players like us not hard to get 60k+ xp in invasion game, but I won’t say its in the average range.
The couple match I meet him, both of us got around 150-250 kills, these would hv 5000-10000 base XP in average. But since he’s not playing infantry only like me, I think he would hv more 300+ kills game than me.
But well, it doesn’t matter, since we’re talking about new players, its meaningless even we hv 100k in average.
do that, “summary” is where your text goes, picture where it says “this text will be hidden.” Feel free to DM them to me if you don’t want to share publicly. You may feel you’re an average player, I might disagree based on my feeling that I am and the numbers you ballparked, but we’ll never really know which of us is closest to right unless the devs publish the stats, so I don’t think it’ll help with the dispute we’ve got going.
More reasonable does not equal reasonable, just less unreasonable. I’m not saying it’s impossible, it seems unlikely, and I’ll believe it when I see numbers.
This is a screengrab of the table Keofox posted, a sample of the stats for players who'd been banned for exploiting the AI behavior to farm massive experience in a short amount of time
and this is what I did to show the math. Base xp total/sessions. I might be wrong, the dev table might be indicating base xp for one of those sessions per player, but if not, this is how the math works out.
At this point, I’m going to have to message the devs to get clarification, because with the exception of that last line, my pvp results appear to be in the same range as the average exploitative bot farmer, and that either can’t be the case, or I’m missing some vital information. If every average to excellent player was earning experience in pvp at a rate equal or greater to people they punished for exploiting the bots, we may just have found a very real problem.
I’ll just take the easy way out and attach the way I know. I only play a few games per day, but I think all have a time stamp. I also will include a couple from “my cousins” new F2P account for review of a semi-experienced player with a brand new F2P account.
So to me, these are average base XP rewards for an average player. I only use T1 infantry squads, so I know that Tankers and Assault Pilots would average much more.
I had a few more kills, one less vehicle kill, ten more assists, five more engineer points, 2 less captures and 9 less squads lost, and almost 1000 points more than you for four minutes less session time, and recieved almost one thousand less base experience. I’d love to see the devs explain that one, and when I start playing other campaigns again I’ll be recording my data separately.
The rest of these screenshots, my brain wants to believe either tinfoil hat germans get more xp than their opponents for the same performance, or, more reasonably, engineer points are worth way more experience than I thought and my teams hate using my rally points.
I like that you guys put loads of boosters, premium, top tier OP squads and call it average game for XP calculation.
Reality of a player grinding through campaign is different. But on avg it is 5-10k XP per match depending on if we are getting slaughtered by top tier equipment/have many top tier equipment on our side so I have no one to shoot at or it is balanced match.
It was pretty long fight (40 min.) and it was pretty tiring. We defended well but it kind of looked like the game was artificially prolonged because allies farmed kills without pushing too much and when they had about 100 tickets, they overrun the objective.
I’ve only referenced base xp, so I don’t know how any of the boosters in my screenshot (no xp cards, just premium time and victory/hero rewards) have anything to do with it. I’m not tracking my total xp, either, just the base.
This new screenshot has me convinced there’s something screwy going on behind the scenes with xp rewards between the different campaigns and factions or gamemodes and sides of the fight. You came in third place, had less kills, two more vehicle kills, 18 less assists, 7 more engineer points, half as many objective kills, defending so no captures, and seven more squads lost, in a match almost twice as long and earned math 2064 more base experience than I did. That seems like nonsense to me, what do you think? Either vehicle kills and engineer points carry a lot more weight than I thought they did, or we’re not earning on equal footing for the same performance.
It should have been reply to the previous post.
I have engineer at every squad so I try to build spawns/ammo and sometimes sandbags. What I noticed is that it shows only score for placing the structure at the final scoreboard under engineering but the score gained by usage of these things is probably directly calculated into score. I’m not sure if long range or multi kill count for extra points and I did plenty of them.
I’m wasn’t referring to the “best engineer” hero award, it goes to the person who scores the most points while playing as an engie, but not necessarily the one who builds the most or the most useful stuff, which I agree isn’t how it should be.
I’m talking about how @4346470 performed worse in his screenshot than I did in mine, in every way except vehicles killed and engineer points, and somehow earned 2k for that match than I did for mine. I can’t make that make sense.
Ah, gotcha. He and I were comparing base xp notes, so I’m still not sure why you jumped in criticizing his boosters, but I guess it doesn’t really matter.
Me too, and I also noticed that. What I now need to know is how experience for vehicle kills and engineer points is calculated, because I can’t wrap my brain around how you performed objectively worse than I did and earned that much more experience for it.
Thanks, but there’s no need. I’m not bad with numbers, but I’m not good enough to figure out exactly how they calculate the base xp rewards, and I don’t have time to look at and enter all the data you could send me, because more would be better, and I won’t ask you to put 9 months of games into a spreadsheet for me. What’s already been shared here is enough to demonstrate that there might be a disparity between the rate at which Axis Normandy and Soviet Berlin earn experience, unrelated to player performance.
Bronze cards for soldiers are given for every 1,500 experience
Okay, let’s say I exaggerated. Although yesterday I definitely got 17 per battle. By the way, don’t forget the 100% multiplier for BP. Which I get once or twice a day.
Sometimes I get 7-8, sometimes 21-23.
Still, a fighter for 1 card is too cheap. It will ruin the economy. After all, the game is a product and the most important thing for comfort is premium and BP.
Figures that I suggested are more viable (okay they can be slightly reduced). 3-5 for 1 range, 7-9 for the second, 11-13 for the third.
You can want everything for free, but it’s useless to suggest something that developers don’t need at all. It’s like suggesting that the government should hand out money to everyone.
I think that you mean me. As @Squidocide mentioned, we were only comparing BASE XP, before any boosters, Premium XP modifier or battle hero multipliers were added.
You could be confusing battle points earned with base XP earned. AFAIK, the points on the leaderboard
determined the battle hero multipliers but don’t have a direct correlation to base XP.
Next game, scroll up and mouse over each soldier and squad. I do believe that higher level squads (where the squad update tree has unlocked all XP nodes) will earn a higher rate of base XP than a lower level squad.
I’ll attach a video showing the update tree for “my cousins” low level F2P account that earns a decent amount of BASE XP. You’ll see that I skipped the update nodes to increase squad size until I wanted to add an engineer to a squad. Understanding how and when to use upgrade points goes a LONG way towards faster progression.
Here is video link (I don’t have a YT channel, just using it to store link) of a level 4 F2P’s Upgrade tree. Note that to keep squad size small and maximize BASE XP earned “my cousin” focused on unlocking nodes to increase both player and squad xp 1st. Also note that even though campaign level is only 4 (I believe after 4 battles) the Squads level are quite a bit higher. BTW, this is the account with the screenshot above showing 6000+ BASE XP in a very early battle
