Finally an incentive for range to shoot cavalry. Easiest way to get a high score as ranged is to keep shooting dem horses.:lol:
range could abuse and farm points by just shooting horses but I guess that's how you want it to work :/
I understand your point but it is a bit "unfair" since players who are shooting the cav directly should get bonuspoints for risking the chance to shoot the horse :P
Just love that all this scorewhores run to every dead body and hit it, looks so funny :D
I do this since the afterdeath hits are in just as insult :mrgreen: You don't get points for hitting a dead body, do you?Used to give 1 point per hit on a corpse. Dunno if fixed yet.
I agree of course, the amount of score you get from horses should be tweaked, but it's a step in the right direction.
This.
And @Ganner : This would allow clanmates and strangers to teamkill you after round :((
I think this could become very interesting if the points were tied to players' K/D ratio, or average score if it ever appears on the character page - I SHOULD be awarded more points for harming our team's main threat than a harmless peasant.
Just a thought.
K/D ratio is a poor judge on a players worth. If they should adopt a system like that, they should base it upon the ELO system, like they do with the duel system.
(did read avg score;P)
Points are a poor judge on a players worth. If they should adopt a system like that, they should base it upon the K/D system, like they do with EVERY GAME IN EXISTANCE AND CRPG UP UNTIL TWO DAYS AGO.
Every game that* judges its players, uses some form of the ELO ranking system.
- Dota (1-2)
- HoN
- LoL
- SC 2
- GW
- WoW arena
- CS: GO
+++++
In ingame scoreboard could still be sorted after k/d ratio, but score should be calculated using a tweaked ELO system.
Good players will get a good k/d and a high score. Support players will get a higher score and frag stealers a lower, what's not to like?
I haven't played since last Thursday, so haven't experienced the new scoring system. But from the sounds of it, it still rewards strength builds (people who do more damage) than support and agility builds.
It is more or less impossible to compete with cav on the damage dealt scoring system.
but.. archery is underpowered.. we do no damage.. *fires 1 shot at stray horse or infantry, gets 30 points each time, tops scoreboard with 0-10 score*
Well I think this is more of an indication that the point system needs some tweaks, not that archers are overpowered.
Current system:
- take the damage dealt
- cap it by what HP the enemy has left
- divide by 10, round down
- if it is a horse and has a rider divide by 5,
- if it is a horse without rider set to 0
- if it's a teammate multiply by -2
- if you hurt yourself * -1
this is the hitters score
- divide score by 2
- apply to everyone within 3m that is an enemy of the one who was hit
Current system:
- take the damage dealt
- cap it by what HP the enemy has left
- divide by 10, round down
- if it is a horse and has a rider divide by 5,
- if it is a horse without rider set to 0
- if it's a teammate multiply by -2
- if you hurt yourself * -1
- give this score to the one who did the damage
- divide score by 2
- give to everyone within 3m that is an enemy of the one who was hit
1 - Losing points for hurting yourself (fall damage I guess?). I never really liked how falling to your death resulted in not only a death but also losing a kill. This is further penalizing falling to your death? Just curious why that is necessary.
Well, it might be correlated. First of all, there will be a base gain for losing (think x1) and for winning (think x2 to x2.5)
And on top of that, you will get a personal score (ranging from x0 to x3, maybe).
I understand that the current system is not ready for that, it will take quite some tweaking. It's a very early test. If the test doesn't work out, we'll look for something else.
However, it's important to note that this will be relative, not absolute (gaining 20 points means more when the enemy has 1 point, and less when the enemy has 200)
It is an anit griefing tool. Otherwise people would jump to their death at the last second to avoid the enemy killing them and them get a kill.
Also, is it possible to make the scoreboard bigger....
Archers do this 75% of the time already.
I hate falling to my death :(
Well, it might be correlated. First of all, there will be a base gain for losing (think x1) and for winning (think x2 to x2.5)
And on top of that, you will get a personal score (ranging from x0 to x3, maybe).
I understand that the current system is not ready for that, it will take quite some tweaking. It's a very early test. If the test doesn't work out, we'll look for something else.
However, it's important to note that this will be relative, not absolute (gaining 20 points means more when the enemy has 1 point, and less when the enemy has 200)
Thanks. I feel winning should be the overriding aim for players though, rather than the pad their score.
Alright, now combined with my own observations as well as the scoring system being published (horses divided by five) I am completely certain that threads like this are near pointless until a few weeks have passed by for everyone to actually get used to the scoring system and not "see what they want to see" such as horses giving more points then riders.
algorythm here:
http://forum.meleegaming.com/general-discussion/adjust-the-new-scoresystem-slightly-feedback/msg573046/#msg573046
locking this thread for a few hours so the discussion moves there
Alright, now combined with my own observations as well as the scoring system being published (horses divided by five) I am completely certain that threads like this are near pointless until a few weeks have passed by for everyone to actually get used to the scoring system and not "see what they want to see" such as horses giving more points then riders.
Sounds like chadz wants us to talk about it in this thread.
Horses give double points compared to players.Given how it was typed out as two separate instances instead of an OR operation, I read it as "Divide all damage by ten" then going to the next operator "if a horse divide by an additional 5." It seems like a modifier given the "if" since things like the teamwounds are also operating off of "ifs."
Score from damage done to players = damage done to players / 10
Score from damage done to horses = damage done to horses / 5
See?
Current system:otherwise the divide by ten applies to all scenarios.
- take the damage dealt
- cap it by what HP the enemy has left
- if it is a player divide by 10, round down
- if it is a horse and has a rider divide by 5,
- if it is a horse without rider set to 0
- if it's a teammate multiply by -2
- if you hurt yourself * -1
- give this score to the one who did the damage
- divide score by 2
- give to everyone within 3m that is an enemy of the one who was hit
Current system:
- take the damage dealt
- cap it by what HP the enemy has left
- divide by 10, round down
- if it is a horse and has a rider divide by 5,
- if it is a horse without rider set to 0
- if it's a teammate multiply by -2
- if you hurt yourself * -1
- give this score to the one who did the damage
- divide score by 2
- give to everyone within 3m that is an enemy of the one who was hit
Given how it was typed out as two separate instances instead of an OR operation, I read it as "Divide all damage by ten" then going to the next operator "if a horse divide by an additional 5." It seems like a modifier given the "if" since things like the teamwounds are also operating off of "ifs."
Given how it was typed out as two separate instances instead of an OR operation, I read it as "Divide all damage by ten" then going to the next operator "if a horse divide by an additional 5." It seems like a modifier given the "if" since things like the teamwounds are also operating off of "ifs."
If they are two separate cases then it needs to be rewritten as follows:otherwise the divide by ten applies to all scenarios.
I'm pretty sure this is the correct formula.
It's not, it's an additional divide
- give to everyone within 3m that is an enemy of the one who was hitAs archer i dont like this :(!
As archer i dont like this :(!
I also think that killing a riderless horse should give a minus score.
I also think that killing a riderless horse should give a minus score.
Not much, but enough for a player to reconsider it before just instakill a horse without even looking around if some teamate might want to mount it, which often is the case.
This will only improve teamplay while at the same time decreasing the risk of anyone killing a horse or any other animal IRL... :wink:
NO! Sometimes its very useful killing a straying horse, if the enemies is the only one having cav left for instance. And it can be annoying if you get trampeled by horses all the time. If you lose your horse, its your fault.
Would be nice to have an option to arrange ladder according to kills, not to score. Default settings could be current one, but I'd like to have a choice between current scoreboard and the old one. No idea if it's possible.
Hits giving points will fix everything. But only hits done by a weapon, no bumps.
You just hate animals, don't you?
It hurts my eyes to see all these infantry players instakilling any horse crossing them, without hesitation. It's obscene and sick!
They totally lack respect for animals. How can anyone support that?
Bottom line:
It's not morally right that we should let this behaviour keep on going when we have the possibility to stop it.
/Against animal abuse
But you have nothing against humans slaughtering other humans, even if they surrender or are unarmed?
What about the cavalry players who are so "abusive" as tobringforce an "innocent" animal to a battle, knowing full well it will probably get hurt, and even killed? Are they not even worse for the exploitation of animals?
Nothing beats good meat.
- Give extra points for special kills/hits (such as kick slashing and chamber hits)
I thought this is a war game simulator and not Snooker with trick shots?
Currently, I can't compare with good cav. But if they change it to hits, my low damage will give me an advantage over cav.
Body hits should be a priority imo.
Some stuff I'd suggest myself:
- don't base it on the damage dealt, but on the bone: head 2 points, rest 1 point (peasants will automatically bring less points by going down in 1 hit)
- extend the teamplayer bonus to 4m and 100%, not 50%
- give an extra point for killing (a human)
No. No hiltslashing bundle of sticksry giving most points. One handers deserve buff. Head hits have priority.
Yes, body hits, at the moment it is just 'hits' - body hits means specific points based where you hit, obviously headshot count most.
Don't body shots already deal more damage? So your suggestion is already implemented kind of.
hiltslashing bundle of sticksry
Some stuff I'd suggest myself:
- don't base it on the damage dealt, but on the bone: head 2 points, rest 1 point (peasants will automatically bring less points by going down in 1 hit)
- extend the teamplayer bonus to 4m and 100%, not 50%
- give an extra point for killing (a human)
Some stuff I'd suggest myself:
- extend the teamplayer bonus to 4m and 100%, not 50%
I like it as a starting point but I don't think that damage dealt should be completely ignored. The system you described above seems to favor spammy-weapon agility builds heavily while the system currently in place definitely favors big-weapon strength builds. There has to be some middle ground that is fair to both.
Maybe somehow factor in a modifier to the damage-awarded points that takes into account the damage you did relative to your potential. Like, just for example, you'd get 1X points for an average hit; 2X points for a hit scored with both the sweet spot of your attack animation and good speed bonus; and 0.5X for a hit that glances. Something along those lines.
Strength builds would still get credit for the raw damage they're putting out while the agility guys get rewarded for the footwork that is, arguably, more crucial to their builds.
This is still just a rough idea so don't jump down my throat just yet.
Wouldn't this be coming full circle to what cRPG was before I even played the game? I remember when I started, people talking about "how it used to be" with everyone just following around players like Goretooth to get points from the people they kill.
I think it should just be damage done. This will help account for sweet spots (sweet spots do more damage) and bone hits (headshots do more damage) so its the easiest solution.
Think agi builds get shafted? I don't think so. A slow str build might get 12 hits in at great damage, but a fast agi build might get 17 hits at medium damage....so in the end I think they'd have the same chance at points.
Current system:
- take the damage dealt
- cap it by what HP the enemy has left
- divide by 10, round down
- if it is a horse and has a rider divide by 5,
- if it is a horse without rider set to 0
- if it's a teammate multiply by -2
- if you hurt yourself * -1
- give this score to the one who did the damage
- divide score by 2
- give to everyone within 3m that is an enemy of the one who was hit
what about players that manual block while others swing by behind and get the points, manual block an enemy would give at least a tiny fraction of the current player that kill it if is done in the last seconds..
A small bonus to who stays alive at end of each round and did damage to the enemy..
That's where being within 3m comes in handy. Blocking or distracting the player gets you points.
Yeah... that will be like the XP barns, only score barns now. Do we really want that? Not me. I don't think we should be forced to play as a group. If I stay in the open to hold back cav away from the group I don't get any points from surrounding teammates. And everyone just running in the vicinity of the top scorers get points for free? Only because I'm standing beside someone doesn't necessarily mean I help them.
I assume there is something in the algorithm to avoid spreading negative points via TW/TK? Otherwise if I hit a teammate I end up spreading negative points to others. :lol:
To be honest, I value animal life above humans as long as it's not a child or a woman.
Only if you care about your score really. The old crpg was all about the xp and gold. Which led to xp barns and xp bridge and so forth.
Only if you care about your score really. The old crpg was all about the xp and gold. Which led to xp barns and xp bridge and so forth.I miss the xp barn :(
So I suppose if you care enough about your score then yes you are forced to work with the team more but not necessarily. You can still have a decent score on your own.
Completely off-topic, but fuck you, you white-knighting retard. I guess you don't see how offensive and paternalistic it is to put women on the same level as animals and children, like some sort of mentally challenged sub-human. Or of course that you value animal life over a man's...totally sociopathic, but accepted by society, congrats. I guess in your head it's some sort of noble gesture.
Unless of course you're just trolling, in which case ignore me.
Well, maybe I was overexxagerating. I also think you take things way to serious...
Anyway, you can cut the children and women part and add evil in front of human. Fuck nobility.
If you still think it's fucked up, then, well, fuck you too.
You will just be another one to add to the list of targets on the battlefield. I actually liked you until now Oberyn.
It disturbs me if you rather give your support to an evil human who has been stealing, raping, robbing and so on than a neutral wild life tiger.
Well as I understood it, XP and gold might be bound to that score. If that happens, everyone will care about its score... :|
I prefer the current multi system over this as the score is only a visible reward for your play.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Anyway, ontopic again!
new score system on EU1 for testinggreat!
new score system on EU1 for testing
new score system on EU1 for testingsuck gang damange is broken
- give to everyone within 3m that is an enemy of the one who was hit
I would add
- divide score by 4
- give this score to everybody who hitted that enemy
The new system is basically whoever can stay in the big group/horde the longest gets the most points. I tested 2 rounds 1 where i went off by myself, got serverall kills and assists and the other where i sat in the horde holding up my shield not attacking. The difference was huge with about 5 kills and quite a bit of other damage i barely got 60 points, but just sitting in the horde i got over 200 from 1 round. I suppose this supports team play, as people are just sticking in huge groups now but i dont think this is the way it should be achieved as getting kills solo, or doing anything solo feels kinda pointless atm.that sytsem is like old gold system and that suck
that sytsem is like old gold system and that suck
points-KDR 0-2
btw I don't care then some nubs will -1 me because he can topscore now by doing totally nothing
that sytsem is like old gold system and that suck
points-KDR 0-2
btw I don't care then some nubs will -1 me because he can topscore now by doing totally nothing
And? You still have to KILL to win. I can whore points all I want, but if my team doesn't kill it doesn't matter. I'm still x1.
The new system is basically whoever can stay in the big group/horde the longest gets the most points. I tested 2 rounds 1 where i went off by myself, got serverall kills and assists and the other where i sat in the horde holding up my shield not attacking. The difference was huge with about 5 kills and quite a bit of other damage i barely got 60 points, but just sitting in the horde i got over 200 from 1 round. I suppose this supports team play, as people are just sticking in huge groups now but i dont think this is the way it should be achieved as getting kills solo, or doing anything solo feels kinda pointless atm.
Make it simple though:
A kill = 10 points
Assists:
High Damage:8 points
Medium Damage: 5-6 points
Low Damage: 2 Points
fix the balance.
one team had 40 players and the other team had 60+.
sorry dont have screenshot.
I would prefer a 25% proximity reward, personally, no more then the original 50% at most.
I think 10% is enough.
Some nord stole Egans forum name! Wtf(click to show/hide)
I think 10% is enough.
(click to show/hide)
I dont know what those people with 2 Kills have done exactly for the team and granted, some of my kills were onehits on people who arrive at flag with low hp but it seems kinda off.
I really enjoy the new point system as a support player. I've been at least in the top 3 every game even when I had less than half the kills of the people around me. Many times I laughed when I had more points with 6-12 kills than those that had 18-24 kills.
An ensuing small discussion came around when they were talking about how BS it was that I was topping the charts with half the kills of the cavalry players while I played a Hoplite. I simply said it was hard to kill as a hoplite and they replied with "Yeah, but damage doesn't matter. What if you hit their best player for 80% of his health but he then kills 4-5 more people." In that sense, no the damage does not matter. But when you play a support character you get to hit people for 80% of their health and hand feed the kill to your ally. You do this A LOT.
Tl;dr, I'm glad supports are now getting recognized.
disappering from scoreboard suckz :(this.
this.
not high priority, but really annoying!
it needs to be fixed, and be it just for the reason to see who of the disappearing guys (who could be game changers) is dead or not ....
and i would love to see the score taken into account inside a new value that can be shown next to the k:d on the website.
and please add a score column in the strategus battle charts.
so far i'm actually pleased with the system as it goes, although i'm still in favor of taking away ALL scores tbh, but ye ... it's okay :P
... although i'm still in favor of taking away ALL scores tbh, but ye ... it's okay :P+1
+1