Mission table's flawed logic

[Holdodlig]

Hello everyone, I want to share with you my concern about a feature in the mission tables which is the mission table's flawed logic here, which is the level of troops.

Let's get to the point, troops are based on the average level of your adventurers. So when you have two level 20 adventurers, your troops are level 20 because the math to determinate its level is (20+20)/2. And when you have two level 20 adventurers and then recruit a level 1 adventurer the level of the troops declines because now the math is (20+20+1)/3 which drop it to level 14.

Now it's problematic because recruiting new adventurers is actually hurting you in the missions progression as it lower the stats of your troops and make them weaker.

A simple fix to that would be to make troops not be able to loose level. Even if they're blocked to a specific level until the remaining adventurers manage to catch up, it won't at least not make them weaker.

[loras]

Hello everyone, I want to share with you my concern about a feature in the mission tables which is the mission table's flawed logic here, which is the level of troops.

Let's get to the point, troops are based on the average level of your adventurers. So when you have two level 20 adventurers, your troops are level 20 because the math to determinate its level is (20+20)/2. And when you have two level 20 adventurers and then recruit a level 1 adventurer the level of the troops declines because now the math is (20+20+1)/3 which drop it to level 14.

Now it's problematic because recruiting new adventurers is actually hurting you in the missions progression as it lower the stats of your troops and make them weaker.

A simple fix to that would be to make troops not be able to loose level. Even if they're blocked to a specific level until the remaining adventurers manage to catch up, it won't at least not make them weaker.

Sounds like a good fix, have you suggested it to Blizzard yet?

[Holdodlig]

Yes I suggested it to them with the in game tool and I at least shared them the issue on the dev twitter but this kind of problem always need awareness from the community

[OmniSkribe]

On one hand you are right. The simpliest solution is to: set Troops level = highest of adventurers level.

On the other hand, if we theorize: if you have two excelent generals and split army between them (50/50) will this army be stronger or weaker against army with 2 excelent and 1 weak general and their army split among them in proportion (33/33/33)?

In general I don't think it's an oversight on developers side. This way they can increase time needed for players to gain levels which leads to more subscription time.

[Lefrog]

On the other hand, if we theorize: if you have two excelent generals and split army between them (50/50) will this army be stronger or weaker against army with 2 excelent and 1 weak general and their army split among them in proportion (33/33/33)?

Then the fix should be that the troops take on the average level of whatever generals you have in the specific mission.

I.e. if you do a mission with a 20 general, your troops at 20. If you do a mission with a 20 general and a 10 general, then your troops are 15.

[Redroniksre]

On one hand you are right. The simpliest solution is to: set Troops level = highest of adventurers level.

On the other hand, if we theorize: if you have two excelent generals and split army between them (50/50) will this army be stronger or weaker against army with 2 excelent and 1 weak general and their army split among them in proportion (33/33/33)?

In general I don't think it's an oversight on developers side. This way they can increase time needed for players to gain levels which leads to more subscription time.

I don't really think that is a valid excuse. Overall you make pretty good progress within one month of gametime. If people were paying for each day of play, that would be different but one month is more than enough to do most of what you need to.