Anyone know what the thinking was behind capping the XP for campaign levels at 180,000? Was this ever talked about? Seems logical to incrementally increase the XP needed to gain levels. Instead, it goes from 144 to 180 and then 180 for 16 levels. Almost half the campaign is maxed XP. Feels like lazy development.
1 Like
You want to grind 1000000 XP for endgame-levels? I don’t get your point.
1 Like
You’ve missed the point, I think. Incrementally. Instead of 144 straight to 180 for 16 levels. 144, 150, 154, 158, etc. Incrementally. Yes, it will go above 180 at the end. However, the rewards will be gained a little quicker and what should be higher end rewards will take just a little more time to acquire.
Okay, this is makes sense.
1 Like
Very simply, because the levels that start being 180k each used to be the top of the campaign in the past.
Then more levels were added afterwards, and we must be thankful that they didn’t increase beyond 180k for each step.
1 Like
I’m very grateful for this game. I have a ton of fun playing it. I spend real money on it.
However, saying “be thankful they didn’t just increase beyond 180k” is much like being in a toxic relationship. E.G. I don’t like that my wife screams at me I’m just thankful that she doesn’t beat me too. And it doesn’t solve or offer suggestion or is it even relevant to the post. Also, the fact that they added campaign levels after they decided to cap at 180 is obvious and irrelevant.
Just adding levels without any consideration for actual progression seems lazy. I was curious if anyone knew what the thinking was behind the decision and if a more incremental progression has ever been taken into consideration.
I still don’t understand, why high-rank progression can’t be linear? In what way it is lazy?
For the first 19-20 levels the XP gain is incremental. After that campaign levels were added, and the XP pretty much stayed the same except for one jump to 180. You know what. F*** it I give up with this forum.