Excuse me if this somehow sounds rude, I meant no offense.
Yea, the plan was to divvy out experience by the level of the units.
That is, the higher the unit, the more experience they gain from the battle since they probably did all the real fighting.
There's a difference between fighting and learning. And we're talking about a game here not a reality simulator.
Gameplay-wise that's not such a good idea. Remember, party gets formed "on the fly". It is already a problem to keep weaker party members alive. I think low level members should be getting a bonus instead of a penalty so that party gets equal faster.
What you wanted to implement would have kept the gap for longer (maybe even infinitely, depends on actual distribution).
And if low level champs keep biting the dust how do they get to high levels?
It drives me nuts that apparently if I get a group of champions and we slaughter a monster, AI stack, whatever, they all seem to get the same experience points (full xp points of whatever was killed each) for it. So if I have six characters kill a 100 xp whatever, each champion gets 100 xp. That is bogus.
I am not even in favor of dividing XP of what you killed equally. My opinion, which many will probably disagree with, is that the XP of whatever you attack should be factored by the units attacking. So if you attack with 100 combat against a 50 combat rating, you get 1/2 the defending combat rating divided by the strength of the attacking units. If an attacking unit dies, the XP is lost.
Call me old school.
By-the-damage distribution isn't going to work well It never does.
There's a game called "Space wolfs" ... to make it short - whoever had the best laser hamstered 80% of all experience. Horrible system.
Did you happen to forget that there are sovereigns not built for combat, or do you want them to get 2-4 times less experience than they currently do?
