Points required for level-up

[[1AD] -=Medusa=-NL]

I wonder what the needed points are for each level-up.

The first levels are quickly achieved. But it seems for each level-up you need more points for the next one.

Is there a clear overview what number of points is needed?

At this point, I'm level 74. But it seems it took ages for me to go from 70 to 74.

What will it take to go from 99 to 100?

[Kingkat54]

Have wondered the same.

[[509th] Ryan]

It takes a while once you achieve level 70 and beyond. Not to boast, but to give some perspective, I have 1,426 hrs in-game and am at Level 100 (since June). Level X in 4 roles and Levels VI-IX in all the rest except medic, I'm level II. Leveling up goes faster with Victories and even faster with Victories accompanied by accommodations from your team or squadmates. Losses, coupled with no accommodations are the slowest path. It's a grind for sure.

[Maulwürfelchen]

Got level 100 after 400 something hours, most of which were before u7. You should be able to get there faster since they added more ways to gain XP in u7. BUT its really not changing your life... the most impact on how I precive and play the game made the decision to join a group of players in a steam group to play regularly with... seems you are already at that point, so you should really dont loose any sleep over your rank... ;)

[[1AD] -=Medusa=-NL]

Well, I spend around 640 hours being now on level 74.

It is not that I loose sleep over it and it is not that important indeed. I like the game and that is enough.

But it is the case that the number of earned points determine how fast you progress.
So when someone only played 100 hours and is already on level 74, more points are earned per hour. So that is a clear indication this player would be better performing.

There are some indicators which determine the quality of a player. And that is clearly the level progression per hour. If you want to progress faster in levels, you have to increase your points per game.

Would be nice to have somekind of TOP players list, a leaderboard with players having the most points per game. And a leaderboard having the most level progression per hour.

[Maulwürfelchen]

Originally posted by 1AD -=Medusa=-NL:

Well, I spend around 640 hours being now on level 74.

It is not that I loose sleep over it and it is not that important indeed. I like the game and that is enough.

But it is the case that the number of earned points determine how fast you progress.
So when someone only played 100 hours and is already on level 74, more points are earned per hour. So that is a clear indication this player would be better performing.

There are some indicators which determine the quality of a player. And that is clearly the level progression per hour. If you want to progress faster in levels, you have to increase your points per game.

Would be nice to have somekind of TOP players list, a leaderboard with players having the most points per game. And a leaderboard having the most level progression per hour.

I don't see it like that. Right now, there are just classes/positions that will level you up much faster like commander, officer, tanker, anti-tanker or arty. That doesn't make players specializing in other classes less valueable for the team. And as always, having a top list will give incentive to optimize XP instead of optimizing communication and teamplay.

[✚Panzerlang✚]

Originally posted by 1AD -=Medusa=-NL:

Well, I spend around 640 hours being now on level 74.

It is not that I loose sleep over it and it is not that important indeed. I like the game and that is enough.

But it is the case that the number of earned points determine how fast you progress.
So when someone only played 100 hours and is already on level 74, more points are earned per hour. So that is a clear indication this player would be better performing.

There are some indicators which determine the quality of a player. And that is clearly the level progression per hour. If you want to progress faster in levels, you have to increase your points per game.

Would be nice to have somekind of TOP players list, a leaderboard with players having the most points per game. And a leaderboard having the most level progression per hour.

That generates an 'interesting' stat/metric. Currently you could say you're a 'Class 8.6 Player' (640 hours divided by 74).
A lower number would be better.

[[1AD] -=Medusa=-NL]

I really do not agree. Top lists are in general incentive on improving your quality. If you want to get higher in ranks, you must increase the quality in which you will get higher in ranks.

So if HLL is about points per hour, increasing your points per hour will improve your HLL quality.

And you will have more quality when you communicatie, are in a group which communicates and are in a team who communicates.

The HLL points are not about K/D ratio. But on the quality HLL will give extra points for. So when someone has 25.000 points in a single game and another one has 1000 points in the same game and spend the same time, the one having 25.000 points is a better quality player.

If that would not be the case, the HLL system of earning points is not about what a quality player should be, but on something else which has nithing to do with the HLL gameplay.

Really, if there would be a TOP players list which shows points per hour, the one on top IS a top HLL player and everyone wanting to get higher on that list has to conform to the HLL point rules to actually get higher.

/EDIT:

Ok. A tune a bit down. Maybe a TOP list per class per hour then?

So being level 5/10 of class Officer does not say anything. If you spend 1000 hours on it.
But a level 5/10 officer in 20 hours is a better officer than 5/10 in 100 hours Being an officer)

[✚Panzerlang✚]

Well, I'm a 4.8 and I want a medal.

[Maulwürfelchen]

Originally posted by 1AD -=Medusa=-NL:

So if HLL is about points per hour...

I don't think your premise here is valid, at least not to me.

Originally posted by 1AD -=Medusa=-NL:

The HLL points are not about K/D ratio. But on the quality HLL will give extra points for. So when someone has 25.000 points in a single game and another one has 1000 points in the same game and spend the same time, the one having 25.000 points is a better quality player.

If that would not be the case, the HLL system of earning points is not about what a quality player should be, but on something else which has nithing to do with the HLL gameplay.

In my opinion, that's not the case, or at least not entirely. There are many important tasks in HLL that do not give you adequate XP like defending a point where there is no enemy (yet) or placing nodes at the edge of the map. It will be impossible to reward the latter in a fair way, because adding more XP to placing nodes will end up in people just placing nodes instead of going to some hidden place to do it.

Originally posted by 1AD -=Medusa=-NL:

Really, if there would be a TOP players list which shows points per hour, the one on top IS a top HLL player and everyone wanting to get higher on that list has to conform to the HLL point rules to actually get higher.

Maybe... or maybe, he could just be a cheater. Seeing oneself in that list can definitely encourage the usage of cheats.

Originally posted by 1AD -=Medusa=-NL:

Ok. A tune a bit down. Maybe a TOP list per class per hour then?

So being level 5/10 of class Officer does not say anything. If you spend 1000 hours on it.
But a level 5/10 officer in 20 hours is a better officer than 5/10 in 100 hours Being an officer)

I can understand why you would like to have that, its always nice to get some extra confirmation. The problem in my opinion is, that those kinds of top lists tend to make players do things for their score instead of doing things for their squad.

I am not totally against something to show off (recently, I posted something about showing commendations of the last x matches, such that commendations keep meaningful after leveling up to 100), but I am not sure if that kind of thing doesn't do more harm than good.

[Cptn_Miller]

Just do what everyone else does, learn how to shoot arty and get to a 100 in 400 hrs or less.

Or grow some nuggets and try using the worst weapon in the game and see how long that takes lol, aka mg42.

[Roninman]

Originally posted by 1AD -=Medusa=-NL:

I wonder what the needed points are for each level-up.

The first levels are quickly achieved. But it seems for each level-up you need more points for the next one.

Is there a clear overview what number of points is needed?

At this point, I'm level 74. But it seems it took ages for me to go from 70 to 74.

What will it take to go from 99 to 100?

You play for levels or actual enjoyment of the game. This game is missing quite alot of things and people make posts about leveling. Sorry, it wasnt never needed

[Kingkat54]

If points for leveling up was not needed, why do we need levels to have more cosmetics? Or more weapons? Or grant individual points at all? Just "win or lose" after matches?

[Lorem Ipsum]

Originally posted by 1AD -=Medusa=-NL:

I
The HLL points are not about K/D ratio. But on the quality HLL will give extra points for. So when someone has 25.000 points in a single game and another one has 1000 points in the same game and spend the same time, the one having 25.000 points is a better quality player.

So the guy getting a bunch of kills sitting on arty, wasting munitions as his team loses point by point is a better player than the support guy running around and redeploying to make sure they have enough supplies to build garrisons is a better player just because arty guy got a bunch of cheap kills sitting back in spawn?

Nope.

[[1AD] -=Medusa=-NL]

Originally posted by Lorem Ipsum:

So the guy getting a bunch of kills sitting on arty, wasting munitions as his team loses point by point is a better player than the support guy running around and redeploying to make sure they have enough supplies to build garrisons is a better player just because arty guy got a bunch of cheap kills sitting back in spawn?

Nope.

If that would be the case, the points system is not correctly chosen.
Then it seems K/D ratio has an emphasis in the greater scheme of all possible areas where you can earn points.

A guy solely on arty and hitting a lot of kills, does not spend any time in enemy territory, did not build anything, did not destroy stuff, did not defend or attack in strong points.

So, if the points system would prefer that 100 kills without doing all the extra stuff you can do gets more points than someone actually being at strong points as defender or attacker, then the points system is wrong.

The HLL devs want to promote a particular way of playing, how they imagine the game to be at its best. So if they are highly interested in how many kills you get, they would build in that this would earn a lot of points. And when they at the same time do not think being in strongpoints as attacker or defender is good for the game, they will provide less points for that.

So all depends on how the points system is designed at the core. It should promote good players who play HLL as it should be and discourage players playing for goals which are not in line how the HLL devs think it should be.

When the points system is balanced good enough, you can really tell if someone earned 10.000 points that it played more in line of how HLL games should be played compared to someone earning only 1000 points in the same game and spend the same amount of time.

I think that a points system is there to promote something. And you design this in the game.
That way you try, as HLL devs, to move the gameplay in a wanted direction. And if that means that a single guy only playing arty and only has a lot of kills but did nothing else in the game and is getting on top of the list, the point system is designed wrong and should be tweaked so that this earning system is discouraged by giving much less points.

[RoofKorea=BestKorea]

i hit 100 at about 400 hours, which includes alot of time during the crash waves. so i would estimate about 300-350 hours for lvl 100. if you arent a Rtard, of course.