Talk:Unit Experience Chart

Growth Pattern 6
Why is there a new "growth pattern 6" for what seems to be a simple expansion of pattern 4 to reach up to level 100 units? --Rand (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2016 (EDT)


 * Yeah, I just figured out the formula for XP needed to level up and confirmed my suspicion that the values have been wrong for the higher levels. Though this is purely from memory as I don't currently have a unit in the level 90s, I've noticed a few times where I was surprised that my unit fell just short of what it should have reached with X gigantuars based on the chart... Upon closer inspection, it appears that Chippou simply added 680 experience per level for 80+, which is not at all consistent with the rest of the pattern. I suspect Cysidus then saw this incorrect pattern and called it pattern 6 after seeing that the last 20 levels didn't match what was expected for pattern 4. I'm going to be bold and just ditch the old chart... I didn't like how it was numbered anyhow... seemed counter-intuitive to have to look in row 14 for the XP to level up a character that's currently level 13. I will also be publishing the formula I discovered. CodeHydro (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2017 (EST)


 * This looks better. (Assuming that it's accurate: The total experience numbers being off due to rounding individual levels seems weird - are you sure about this?) Also, it looks like "Max Level" is just 100 - in which case the formula because simpler. (If it isn't please edit back with an explanation of "Max Level".)


 * Also, this will require some revision to existing unit articles. Is it true that growth patterns for individual units change? Otherwise, there's no need to have a growth pattern for each iteration of the character - we could include the growth pattern in the sidebar. (I'd recommend this even if there are a few units whose growth patterns change.) --Rand (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2017 (EST)

Unit exp table is datamined and it should be correct, it's a table in the files and not a formula. I don't want pages having edit access locked for no reason so I will just ask this once: if you want to make changes for the unit table please provide hard proof (images) that show the numbers being wrong. I will see if I can double check the numbers for GL but no promises. Edit: Just checked and no difference on unit exp tables, the numbers in the page are correct.

Also, we have a 4 and 6 pattern because this is how the game handles it (growth rate 20 and 30), they were once the same table but were separated later just in case. --Umuzu (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2017 (EST)


 * The question about 4 vs. 6 has been up there for 2 months without being answered. I think you have to figure out if you want this to be a wiki or your personal website - if the former, you should let people edit (though the difficulty in including sources is real). In any case, a clear "About" page is sorely needed.
 * It's not like I'm here 24/7 and sometimes edits get buried and questions not answered. My bad? lol. --Umuzu (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2017 (EST)


 * That's okay, but when that happens, you should try to be cordial and explain why you'd like to revert an edit after not participating in a discussion here. --Rand (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2017 (EST)


 * And I'm still not clear about "because this is how the game handles it". You're saying you've looked at the code, and there are two distinct growth rates written in? Regardless, if they're identical in practice, there's no need for that to be reflected in the wiki (especially since adding a "6" that properly lies between 3 and 5 is highly confusing).--Rand (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2017 (EST)
 * Yes, this is how it is in the code. Just in case is really just in case, this is how the games handle the unit exp so they have been divided since then in case this ever becomes relevant to other things. Just like how units have individual growth pattern for each rarity. It's not like I care enough about this to make a fuss about it if they are merged again, but changing the numbers without actual data is just a big no. --Umuzu (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2017 (EST)


 * The fact that the formula works (that is, it correctly predicts every known value in the table up to level 80) is strong evidence for it being the correct formula. (It goes without saying that these numbers were generated by formula, even if some programmer later decided to hard code them.) I'm inclined to believe that CodeHydro's numbers are right, but I'll leave backing that up to him. Regarding the "just in case" rate 6 - given that this is identical to rate 4 up to a certain point and also corresponds to the coefficient 4 in the formula, I'd merge the two. If there winds up being another growth rate 4 that diverges at level 80 (which I highly doubt), we can add a column for growth rate 4'.


 * (I'll leave the editing up to you here.) --Rand (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2017 (EST)


 * There was no note in the discussion or in source comments that the information was datamined. Because of the mathematical perfection for all growth patterns except that of 6 and the fact that growth 6 was utterly inconsistent, my decision was completely logical and justified. While I am somewhat flabbergasted that growth 6 is so inconsistent, I imagine what may have happened was that the programmers optimized their code by converting the growth patterns into a lookup array rather than having the game recalculate those values for every level up; however, when they later added 6-star units, they realized they lost the original formula and just slapped something together... that's my guess... and seeing the lazy programming in this game, I wouldn't be surprised...
 * I apologize for unwittingly publishing potentially incorrect info, though I still want to confirm these numbers since it's possible that the game doesn't even use the datamined array at all (programmers may have stopped using it but failed to remove it) since I could have sworn I've seen units falling short of expectations in the past... In any case, there's no reason why the formula had to be completely removed and the table completely reverted. The way that it was re-numbered and the section-splitting at each star's max level definitely made the table more user-friendly IMO. And all we need to do is say "The following formula applies to growth patterns 1-5. Growth pattern 6 is a identical to pattern 4 up to level 79; to get the EXP needed for level 80+, simply add 680 times the number of levels above 79 to the EXP needed for level 79."... and by the way, even though I was wrong, a good wiki admin when confronting a new editor who clearly put tremendous albeit misguided would start off his response with something like "Thank you for your effort. Though your contribution was appreciated, the information you provided was unfortunately incorrect."... and rather than full reversion of all edits, one would attempt to preserve the changes which were not factually incorrect as a gesture to encourage newer editors... the responses I've gotten after attempting to improve this wiki on the Trust Master Reward and on this page simply make me want to go back to non-contributing... CodeHydro (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2017 (EST)


 * Too much space so I will be shortening it. About the data in the wiki, the only things that can't be datamined in the game are monster stats (str/def/exp etc) and loot tables, they can to some extent but they are server-sided and no one does it, so basically everything else you can always assume it is - this includes % of skills, items, unit stats, etc - sometimes data may differ but this is because they made some changes to GL and in those cases we can go recheck. About the numbers, I find it very unlikely considering that the growth rate is literally tied to units spreads and they have an individual file to EXPPATTERN, but who knows, if you find some evidence please show.
 * About the edit, I can't say about Cysidus but I am fairly new to this wiki adm business and we all learn as we go, unfortunately the fact is that assuming your formula is right and what they did to 81-100 exp to 6* there is no guarantee that any result not presented in the wiki would be correct (this is 81-100 for table 1, 3 and 5) if they ever decide to expand them to 100. I can edit it the formula itself back in any case.
 * And at last, I will be mindful of what you said even tho I don't think the end results would have changed all that much, I find it a lot easier to just be direct with any issue so don't take it too personal - I'm just no good with pleasantries overall even tho I try. About the TMR page, people take those rankings far more seriously than even what we would like so we end up being more strict with them too, same thing happened with the ranking page some months ago. In any case, we appreciate any help with the wiki and try to not interfere as much as possible with user edits, when we do some are handled better than others but you can always just come to us and we will talk about the reason as much as possible. --Umuzu (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2017 (EST)


 * Thank you for your note. I didn't take it personally but felt it my obligation to point out that admin responses to my contributions seemed contrary to the core wiki-principles of mw:en:WP:AGF and mw:en:WP:Bite. I understand your position and desire to limit the damage of bad info by doing a quick revert, but sometimes slowing down a little can avoid driving away contributors who could potentially bring much more good to this wiki in the future that would outweigh the any harm that may result from having bad info up for a few minutes longer. I mean... the difference from pattern 4 and pattern 6 is only 7k EXP... that won't ruin anybody's game either way... but to drive away contributors who are willing to take the time to figure stuff out... well... anyhow, I have restored my edits and added disclosures that make it clear what is data mined and what is not. Is this acceptable? &mdash;CodeHydro (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2017 (EST)

Xp chart over 101
Can we get the chart for 101-120 filled out please? Rrrof711 (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)