View Full Version : Levelling Raiders

02-28-2013, 05:57 AM
This is not an experience I have had, but on some other forums I am seeing people say they feel pressured to make suboptimal plays in order to get kills on their raiders to level them up, because they would much rather use them to suicide rush in and armour break. I actually find levelling archers vastly easier than anyone else because they can play in such a way as to not be maimed by the whims of the opponent while still dealing armour break and damage, unlike the other classes, so this makes sense to me, and the claim is it provides weird incentives (i.e making you want to play with complete newbies to farm, or deliberately play in such a way that you're not trying to win, only to get kills on that unit).

One thing they are saying is missing is "shared exp" (i.e getting kills on every unit when they win a round, and then just boosting the amount of kills needed to level up back to 10 again or something.) Posting to find how people feel about that.

02-28-2013, 06:37 AM
Yeah, I think there are a few issues with experience, though arguably it's a resource you need to manage.

The experience disparity between my raiders, who bravely whittle down health and armour behind enemy lines and my Warhawk, who crashes about getting chain kills with Tempest is alarming.

A team that focuses on pure aggression, rather that something more nuanced is a lot easier to keep consistent, and I'm not sure WM/thrasher teams need more incentive!

02-28-2013, 07:12 AM
interesting, maybe a battle count is more important than the actual kills?

02-28-2013, 08:00 AM
One of the reasons a shared experience pool isn't implemented is because Renown is this shared experience pool. When you reflect on things you realize every time you kill a unit, you get 1 renown, and that renown can be spent on any unit. The thing is though, kills count a second way, that is not shared, its a set hurdle each particular unit needs to cross (clearly you need less particular kills than shared kills) in order to promote a unit.

I've actually thought and brought this issue up during beta (that not all units will have the same ability to kill stuff). That's probably 1 reason why the rank 1 threshold is 5 kills (it was 10 in beta) And yes some have observed what the OP has described. But not everyone is forced into sub-optimal strategies.

Some ways I have found to mitigate this have been to tweak my unit order, to use my raider to go after archers at times, and the best one, to use pillage as a chance to get a kill.

By using pillage, you can rest your other units and let the unit you want get a kill (if successful, you can get 1 per game as long as the preferred unit stays alive).

Besides this, I'd recommend playing with a full basic team rather than a mostly ranked team with 1 basic, as this matchup provides the best chances for the units to get kills (as opposed to rank 1 fights where the rank 1s are stronger).

02-28-2013, 08:05 AM
Yeah, maybe battle count? I haven't noticed whether the counter only goes up for full games (and not premature surrenders).

It shares this problem with the games that inspired it (like Shining Force, from the five minutes of it I've played). I think it's good that the achievements are designed so as not to divert incentives away from winning; but of course the kill count thing can distort play. I personally share the "it's really d*** hard to get raider kills" perspective. I've trained maybe four raiders up while focusing on victory over farming kills, and it probably took >10 games each. (I'd check, but the servers are down. :()

I think the natural way to play leads to raiders (even promoted ones) dying early (saving archers and Varl for the endgame). However, in one of sweetjer's recent streams (http://www.twitch.tv/sweetjer/b/371680855) (using a fully promoted team), he saved his raiders and instead put a pair of warriors on the front line, and y'know he wins quite regularly... I remember the video because I thought it so strange/interesting at the time.

EDIT@raven: Yeah, I wasn't really trying very hard to get kills for mine; maybe sticking to all rank-zeros would be faster. Back when I was training them, I was cultivating a streak and found that the (probably transient) sweet spot for not losing games was at a team power of three.

02-28-2013, 08:32 AM
One could always field a team without archers.

02-28-2013, 12:15 PM
Yeah, the main reason for this are IMHO the sub-par stats of the base-raider. He gets maimed or killed quite fast and I had to keep one way back outside of archers range to let him sweep kills in the end of a match. It's possible but in fact bad for effectiveness to let raiders collect kills.

Still one of my main issues right now: Letting players tweak the stats of base-units would make it easier to make raiders more potent damage dealers/kill collectors. Right now, they can do everything but nothing really good.

03-01-2013, 02:28 AM
You can always turtle up with archers(seige/bowmasters) on the backline taking out armor and your raiders taking them out in one hit. I have had more than average success with this strategy. Just feild the archers only to take out armor of incoming/rushing foes.
You would probably want to put the archers higher up the initiative order to get this to work properly. But once you nail it down it is also a powerful and viable strategy.

03-01-2013, 09:00 AM
I always had enough kills to promote who I wanted to by the time I got renown. That may just be a consequence of the order I promoted though (archer, warrior, raider, shield bearer, raider). A lot of times when winning a game it's possible to influence which of your characters get the final blow but I suppose that's not an option if you wanted to suicide rush early.