2. Change the multi system
Yes, the multi system is silly. I have no trouble admitting that :]
It makes you stop playing when you drop to x1, and it forces you to continue playing when you have x5.
Therefore, we'll change the system to something that rewards personal skill and risk more. It will be, among other factors, proximity based, as we had in the early versions of cRPG. It will definately not be purely kill based, we don't want to reward fraghunters over teamplayers. It will also not reward proximity leechers. You can expect this change soon.
Well, not the old system but some form similar to it.
Killing enemy horse could count as assist?Only if its mounted.
@Garison
I agree with the idea of exp/gold per kill, I'd rather not have each kill have the same weight. Killing/damaging certain players is far more rewarding (for you and the team) than trying to chase after peasants. I would not like it if killing the random level 10 peasant would be the same as the level 35, 10 k/d boss fight.
@Garison
I agree with the idea of exp/gold per kill, I'd rather not have each kill have the same weight. Killing/damaging certain players is far more rewarding (for you and the team) than trying to chase after peasants. I would not like it if killing the random level 10 peasant would be the same as the level 35, 10 k/d boss fight.
Why do we need to count assists? Everyone will have assists then, and the TAB menu will be crowded. Unless it's for extra experience, then no.
Why do we need to count assists? Everyone will have assists then, and the TAB menu will be crowded. Unless it's for extra experience, then no.
Does this mean that the xp barn will be back?I joined cRPG a bit recently, what is an xp barn?(click to show/hide)
I joined cRPG a bit recently, what is an xp barn?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P32SuOJExR8
Conquest.
Something like that, but with a higher (uneven) amount of flags, otherwise it would only enforce a big infantry meleecluster and reduce the importance of the other classes. Indeed, infantry could need a little importance buff compared to cavalry or ranged, but that would be too much. Having a few flags, three or five, would make the infantry important as shock troops or "anvil" respectively, but archers and cavalry could still contribute their bit.It would only make archers less useful, cav woud be able to ride ahead and take flags ahead of infantry.
It would only make archers less useful, cav woud be able to ride ahead and take flags ahead of infantry.
Actually I would just prefer the replacement of the standard gamemode from battle (with the target of killing all enemy players) to something more objective based, and accomplishing those objectives would win the round, not killing the enemies. That way the focus of the game would be moved away from pure killing to something more "team based", like rageball has. Killing still helps, but it's not the ultimative goal. (Next to other benefits such a system brings, like less delayers and horse crossbowmen hunting with infantry and a few more...)
That way a) gameplay could get improved, because people could perhaps start using their brain instead of hunting kills mindlessly, and b) rewarding kills and assists wouldn't lead to the same extend of teamkills and griefing like it would when killing was the objective.
But actually yes, reward assists. If I think about it properly, the fact how underpowered cavalry is on the paper, but how the retarded gameplay of most players makes cav still overpowered, I would suggest that horses are worth 2 or three players. Perhaps the mindless crowd will then realize there is no use in doing anything (especially charging) before the enemy cav is not taken care of. :rolleyes:
I don't know.
I think assist would give spammers more incentive to hit everyone they possibly can, when they aren't actually the ones fighting the enemy until death.
PLEASE limit assist to 25%+ of damage. Otherwise well have idiots going around punching people just to get a share of assists.
Why do we need to count assists? Everyone will have assists then, and the TAB menu will be crowded. Unless it's for extra experience, then no.
Renown whore.no you!
Time for displaying damage dealt on the scoreboard and win/loss ratio on the website. Also use win/loss ratio for balancing teams.
people pay more attention to the external reward for an activity than to the inherent enjoyment and satisfaction received from the activity itself.
Conquest.
points will never make a good excuse to play a game, it will always corrupt the players behavior (as well as money is not a natural incentive to work, duh).^this
I don't want to play for k/d, nor would I really want to play for assist points, even if I'd get more of them compared to my kill now. instead I would love to play for fun, that I have with some good teamplay and funny people who also don't play for sheer killing. I hate if on any server the main reason for rage is the mindless kill-whoring mindset of about 40% to 60% of the players. most of the time it doesn't even help the team!
I know that the definition of fun is very diverse, everyone has his own. and that's exactly the reason why killing/assists should not be rewarded! I strongly believe people would change their attitude towards mindless killing if the rewards would be dropped completely!
XP could be gained like the skill-development solution in EVE, where you can pick a skill and it will increase based on real-time. I found this system very out-of-the-box and satisfying. why not make our XP-bar rise constantly, for one character at a time, for example? why not?
and I really don't care about people who say: "but you have to gain something for your effort!"
I'm very sure that most of us play this game because of other people, not for the game itself or some abstract numbers! and IF you do, ask yourself: why? isn't it weird?
I don't want my team-play effort put into a straitjacket. having numbers on everything and every action in REAL-life is bad enough.
edit:
real honest effort doesn't need an external reward.
read wikipedia on overjustification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect)
Why would archers be less useful? They can support the attack on a flag or can stand next to it and defend it by already picking the enemy over range.
And cavalry can only take a flag if there is no enemy cavalry nearby, and if they have cover from enemy archers. Otherwise no, they can't.
And it's not only about conquering a flag, you must hold it a certain time. No, I don't think cavalry can decide this on its own.
I dont know. But i do know that the op was referring to siege. Why worrying bout cav on siege is goofy.
So your solution for chadz talking about how to fix the distribution of exp and gold is to introduce renown, which apparently changes nothing about exp/gold. So then what is your solution for spreading the exp and gold?