Mount XP/HP progression numbers

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

04-08-2014, 10:17 AM
Yelsha

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nymeria

How about adding another 5 feed attemps for each star a Mount got. woud keep the feed limit, but raising the limit as people progres through the game.

another idea could be adding more feed attepts after beating royal arena bosses, maybe + 1 or 2 feed

+1 to the additional feed attempts per star level. Each set of 5 feeds should also be more expensive than the previous 5, so at high stars it will cost a lot more to get the last 5-10 feeds.
04-08-2014, 10:37 AM
Greenly

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattp169

Several of us have made suggestion to fix this.
Unlimited feeds
tames are 5 gems
then change exp scale for all mounts to match white horse
each mount costs more to feed then the last
so a white horse costs 500k a feed
while a dragon costs 2m a feed

If you do the math. It lets you get it done much quicker but still will take 3-4 years to get a dragon to level 15 with just feeds
Because it would still cost 194b coins to feed it to level 15 and 49b coins to get a white horse to level 15

SO even if you could find 1b coins a week to feed your dragon thats 194 weeks or 3.73 years or 241m gems to do tames

i like this idea, it will take long, but is at least much better than the way it is going now! damn you mattp! should have warned me before i got the dragon, hahaha!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattp169

ok after staring at my chart. I think it would be too easy to get to 9 stars on any mount
so I came up with a new chart. STill makes the first couple stars easy. makes the the middle stars a little tougher, and keeps the over all costs about the same

White Horse Black Horse leopard tiger bear rhino dragon

exp @250k per feed @500k per feed @750k per feed @1m per feed @1.25m per feed @1.5m per feed @2m per feed

1 star 300 750,000 1,500,000 2,250,000 3,000,000 3,750,000 4,500,000 6,000,000

2 star 900 2,250,000 4,500,000 6,750,000 9,000,000 11,250,000 13,500,000 18,000,000

3 star 2700 6,750,000 13,500,000 20,250,000 27,000,000 33,750,000 40,500,000 54,000,000

4 star 5400 13,500,000 27,000,000 40,500,000 54,000,000 67,500,000 81,000,000 108,000,000

5 star 10800 27,000,000 54,000,000 81,000,000 108,000,000 135,000,000 162,000,000 216,000,000

6 star 21600 54,000,000 108,000,000 162,000,000 216,000,000 270,000,000 324,000,000 432,000,000

7 star 43200 108,000,000 216,000,000 324,000,000 432,000,000 540,000,000 648,000,000 864,000,000

8 star 86400 216,000,000 432,000,000 648,000,000 864,000,000 1,080,000,000 1,296,000,000 1,728,000,000

9 star 172800 432,000,000 864,000,000 1,296,000,000 1,728,000,000 2,160,000,000 2,592,000,000 3,456,000,000

10 star 259200 648,000,000 1,296,000,000 1,944,000,000 2,592,000,000 3,240,000,000 3,888,000,000 5,184,000,000

11 star 388800 972,000,000 1,944,000,000 2,916,000,000 3,888,000,000 4,860,000,000 5,832,000,000 7,776,000,000

12 star 583200 1,458,000,000 2,916,000,000 4,374,000,000 5,832,000,000 7,290,000,000 8,748,000,000 11,664,000,000

13 star 1166400 2,916,000,000 5,832,000,000 8,748,000,000 11,664,000,000 14,580,000,000 17,496,000,000 23,328,000,000

14 star 2332800 5,832,000,000 11,664,000,000 17,496,000,000 23,328,000,000 29,160,000,000 34,992,000,000 46,656,000,000

15 star 4665600 11,664,000,000 23,328,000,000 34,992,000,000 46,656,000,000 58,320,000,000 69,984,000,000 93,312,000,000

total needed 9740100 24,350,250,000 48,700,500,000 73,050,750,000 97,401,000,000 121,751,250,000 146,101,500,000 194,802,000,000

sorry matty but honestly i dont like it. the first thing that i dont like about this is your "obsession" that it should be cheaper to feed lower mounts than higher mounts. also i think the higher mounts having more HP is also reasonable because they invested a significantly higher purchase price. great job on the table tho, but no thank you. on second look at the current system i can see that its designed to suck gems out of you for the gem feeds and they dont care how much coins you are spending unless you can reach it in a lifetime. so my suggestion is to simply leave the current system as is and only change the amount of gems being spent. i would simplify it and just reduce the cost it takes for gem-feeding to a from 1-3 progressing stages.
so so from 1-5 stars i would charge 1gem
6-10 for 2 gems
11-15 for 3 gems
and at the end it would cost them .... uhm you do the math on that? lol something around 25k gem i believe which according to the current "game standards" (if there is such a thing) would make them spend a reasonable amount on gems and encourage lower players to throw gems at the mount instead of coins.

04-08-2014, 03:22 PM
mattp169

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaisim_2492829

sorry matty but honestly i dont like it. the first thing that i dont like about this is your "obsession" that it should be cheaper to feed lower mounts than higher mounts. also i think the higher mounts having more HP is also reasonable because they invested a significantly higher purchase price. great job on the table tho, but no thank you. on second look at the current system i can see that its designed to suck gems out of you for the gem feeds and they dont care how much coins you are spending unless you can reach it in a lifetime. so my suggestion is to simply leave the current system as is and only change the amount of gems being spent. i would simplify it and just reduce the cost it takes for gem-feeding to a from 1-3 progressing stages.
so so from 1-5 stars i would charge 1gem
6-10 for 2 gems
11-15 for 3 gems
and at the end it would cost them .... uhm you do the math on that? lol something around 25k gem i believe which according to the current "game standards" (if there is such a thing) would make them spend a reasonable amount on gems and encourage lower players to throw gems at the mount instead of coins.

Well my obsession with different feed prices for mounts is no different the the current system that requires more exp for different mounts to get to different star levels.

Im just switching the system around to be imo more user friendly and more realistic to get mounts at higher star levels.
04-08-2014, 03:34 PM
davidschlebusch_6020359

Just a questions out of interest
Has anybody yet got a 5 - 6 starred mount yet? perhaps even higher which I doubt
For now Ive only got a leopard which tomorrow will be 4 stars
04-08-2014, 03:55 PM
ChickenWing

Gem feeding is a joke at the moment. How many gems must I spend to go up one level? At the moment, if I spend 300 gems, I don't even go up a level. It's a joke. Iagree there should be a limit in defensive capabilities, but gem feeding hould not be useless.
04-09-2014, 01:41 PM
admrbl_3997995

they need to revamp the progression charts for mounts, so they need less exp, 448 years!!! need I say more ?.
Furthermore should the higher mounts have better gains compared to lesser mounts. if we compare bear vs. drake then there is not much diffrence in hp gains compared to exp spent
the cost of aquiring the top mount is massive though.
04-09-2014, 03:52 PM
kaisim_2492829

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattp169

Well my obsession with different feed prices for mounts is no different the the current system that requires more exp for different mounts to get to different star levels.

Im just switching the system around to be imo more user friendly and more realistic to get mounts at higher star levels.

right, i totally get where you are coming from, on the other hand i dont agree with someone spending 1 billion for a mount and then having to pay x8 the amount to feed it as someone paid for a mount came free from quest. however thats in my eyes a different issue. we really here have several issues that need resolving: time it takes to feed for coins, amount of gems it takes to feed, the amount of XP gained on either and for some the amount of coins it takes.
the difference between you and me is that i am totally fine with the amount of coins for the feed. i disagree on the "lifetime" it takes to feed it on the coin feeds and especially on the gem cost. see the game is designed to make you buy gems and they dont care about what you do with them as long as you spend them.
lets micro this for a moment here and make an example: i have not spent a single gem yet on a feed of my pet because i think 15 gems is too high and/or 200 XP is too low for the amount. but if it was cheaper, in the beginning lets say 1 gem for 200 xp, i would have spent a couple hundred by now...
so when we go back to the bigger picture considering this, i like your idea, but it doesnt make is spend gems, it focuses on a redistribution of feed amounts and times, where i dont think its needed. i think the coin feeds are just fine and i dont need a change. i actually intend to say they hit the nail on the head with it and the plan is obviously to force people to speed it up and feed them with gems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidschlebusch_6020359

Just a questions out of interest
Has anybody yet got a 5 - 6 starred mount yet? perhaps even higher which I doubt
For now Ive only got a leopard which tomorrow will be 4 stars

my daughter got a 5 star white horse that should be 6 tomorrow
05-06-2014, 10:23 PM
kaisim_2492829

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocco

Can anyone confirm that the following spreadsheet showing mount XP/HP progression is correct. Does XP required continue to double?

http://imageshack.com/a/img829/5765/59e.gif

Pretty crazy requirements, if the XP does in fact continue to double.

sorry to say this but you slipped lines in your chart, so a 5 star bear got 16k HP and adds 30k HP. a 4 star dragon is at 20k XP and adds 40k HP

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

		White Horse	Black Horse	leopard	tiger	bear	rhino	dragon
	exp	@250k per feed	@500k per feed	@750k per feed	@1m per feed	@1.25m per feed	@1.5m per feed	@2m per feed
1 star	300	750,000	1,500,000	2,250,000	3,000,000	3,750,000	4,500,000	6,000,000
2 star	900	2,250,000	4,500,000	6,750,000	9,000,000	11,250,000	13,500,000	18,000,000
3 star	2700	6,750,000	13,500,000	20,250,000	27,000,000	33,750,000	40,500,000	54,000,000
4 star	5400	13,500,000	27,000,000	40,500,000	54,000,000	67,500,000	81,000,000	108,000,000
5 star	10800	27,000,000	54,000,000	81,000,000	108,000,000	135,000,000	162,000,000	216,000,000
6 star	21600	54,000,000	108,000,000	162,000,000	216,000,000	270,000,000	324,000,000	432,000,000
7 star	43200	108,000,000	216,000,000	324,000,000	432,000,000	540,000,000	648,000,000	864,000,000
8 star	86400	216,000,000	432,000,000	648,000,000	864,000,000	1,080,000,000	1,296,000,000	1,728,000,000
9 star	172800	432,000,000	864,000,000	1,296,000,000	1,728,000,000	2,160,000,000	2,592,000,000	3,456,000,000
10 star	259200	648,000,000	1,296,000,000	1,944,000,000	2,592,000,000	3,240,000,000	3,888,000,000	5,184,000,000
11 star	388800	972,000,000	1,944,000,000	2,916,000,000	3,888,000,000	4,860,000,000	5,832,000,000	7,776,000,000
12 star	583200	1,458,000,000	2,916,000,000	4,374,000,000	5,832,000,000	7,290,000,000	8,748,000,000	11,664,000,000
13 star	1166400	2,916,000,000	5,832,000,000	8,748,000,000	11,664,000,000	14,580,000,000	17,496,000,000	23,328,000,000
14 star	2332800	5,832,000,000	11,664,000,000	17,496,000,000	23,328,000,000	29,160,000,000	34,992,000,000	46,656,000,000
15 star	4665600	11,664,000,000	23,328,000,000	34,992,000,000	46,656,000,000	58,320,000,000	69,984,000,000	93,312,000,000
total needed	9740100	24,350,250,000	48,700,500,000	73,050,750,000	97,401,000,000	121,751,250,000	146,101,500,000	194,802,000,000