Ditto.

Its also worth renumbering that not all the Heroes are all that good.

Yep and increasing the XP per encounter or decreasing the XP per level will lead to much more levels for a single hero army. That is the reason why i think splitting the XP is a bad idea.

I think it's fine. It takes so little XP to get to the next level anyways currently. So I would go from levelling up once per battle to once every 5 or so battles. That sounds fair to me. It has an overall affect of making roaming monsters stop being a threat so quickly.

And remember you get an XP bonus with intelligence too. So mages level up extra quick.

We won't know until we see how .78 plays.   

I would rather that we increased the power of regular units and the number of them that can be in a battle at any one time than to nerf hero units.

I wouldn't worry.  This will give an added layer of strategy to the game and help control the flow of xp.  The results will be just fine.

That's what the beta is for, to see what happens.

There is no more Beta!  

One cheese tactic I thought of:

Fight big monster with hero stack: wait till almost dead, escape.

Then finish off with hero you want to get all the xp.

Personally, I'm worried this will be unfun.  Then again, straight nerfs (and that is what this is) usually are.  Something needed to be done, I think we all agree on that, but I think this is going to cause folks to game the system.

My preference would have been for champions to be vulnerable to being knocked prone by squads, so champs could become victims to mass mooking.

Yes! I like having champions that aren't used for just killing, but since that's the only way to level (and often their stats aren't good, anyway) there needs to be other ways to get them upgraded.

It's nice there's an improvement (Adventurer's Guild, I think) that will give stationed units a chance to earn XP over time, which is a great implementation of using city building to improve gameplay. I'd love to see more things like this.

I have a bit of a concern that dividing XP will make champions either too watered down or difficult to upgrade, but we'll see how it's implemented.

Yanno .. in the early days (MoM) I wanted the xp to only be from combat (actually I was a proponent of damage given + Kills, instead of just kills).

But, as surprising as it is to the me from a year ago, I really LIKE the idea of a champion getting XP from Caravans and City Builds if

A) they have the right trait

and

B ) they are in the city when shit goes down (ie caravans arriving or builds being completed)

if the science champions are still in the game ... maybe once a tech finishes they can get XP for either

A) if they were in the city when tech completes

or

B ) they get XP proportional to how many 'science points' were made while they were in the city.

->maybe a 1 turn delay and/or ignore the first turn of being in the city ... so as to prevent excessive cheese with high movement adventurers.

(so that they actually have to wait awhile in the city to get research/experience points)

I also wouldn't mind a defensive/hardy trait Champion getting exp for taking damage ....

a DPS champion (strength bonus?) for getting exp for dishing out damage....

any Caster champion for getting XP for just casting spells -> Maybe XP proportional to Mana Cost x Spell Level?

support champions getting double XP for support spells (like buffs/debuffs and heals)

anyways, I think this would be more fun than simply Kills + Quests grant XP.

On another note, I think 'final' combat XP should be split (as suggested) ... but then there would be all these other ways for individual heroes to get individual XP.

ALso, I think pure "Quest XP" for completing quests should ... possibly be un-split, to encourage Champion stack questing (while not necessarily encouraging champ-stack warfare).

-> Also ... maybe if stack sizes and tactical maps were increased (along with splitting champ exp) ... it would make even the weakest of mooks be more viable?

better than researching adventurer level ... it'd be nice if you had a global "Quest level" and going on Quests added to your Quest level.

Then maybe quest level could affect

A) how many Champs you can have per stack

and

what sort of Champs wander to your side (recruitables)

still, I think some of this is currently held by tech, so I guess we don't need to delete the adventurer's tech tree per se ... but MAYBE the adventurer tech path opens up better quests which give more quest xp which IN TURN can increase your quest level.

I'd personally like it if Adventurer tech level worked SYNERGISTICALLY with Quest level somehow.

like Quest level determined strength of new champion spawns, and how many adventurers you could hold

while Adventure tech unlocked different 'tiers' of quests (higher tech for harder quests with more exp).

Meanwhile, different levels of Adventure Guilds could have a duo requirement of both tech level AND quest level. Maybe all guilds unlocked by an 'early' tech ... but varying Quest levels. (like beginner's guild -> Expert's guild just require different quest levels to build)

I'd be nice if you could retire an adventurer as a permanent "Super Citizen" who gives double productivity and double taxes.

Either that or you could continue to level adventurers in Administrative roles. While pure "level" is nice ... it might be easier to incorporate administrative XP (XP for each build completed, for each caravan arriving, etc) if there was a "Combat level" and an "Administrative level".

the Combat level can be gained via Questing and Combat ... while the Admin level can only be gained by ... running a city (staying in a city for many turns while stuff happens in them).