cRPG

cRPG => General Discussion => Topic started by: Krax on June 30, 2013, 02:35:54 am

Title: the scoring system
Post by: Krax on June 30, 2013, 02:35:54 am
how does it work, seems to favor melee more than ranged.

As you see on this ss all the ranged seem to have around 50% of the Points the melee gets if you look at the kills.
Is it some sort of proximity score they get ?

I also seem to get alot more points if i just kills the horses and ignore the rider.
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Carthan on June 30, 2013, 02:42:00 am
seems to favor melee more than ranged.

Is it some sort of proximity score they get ?

That is pretty much it, you get points for being next to someone who is doing damage, which is another reason shielders and hoplites get more points on average, their ability to survive in the melee and be around so much damage.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Grumbs on June 30, 2013, 02:44:27 am
Passive gameplay should not be possible for farming points imo. Its best that the players who get involved the most get the points

Also how are you feeling those HX nerfs?
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Aprikose on June 30, 2013, 11:12:16 am
Who was more useful for the team...
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Krax on June 30, 2013, 11:23:41 am
Passive gameplay should not be possible for farming points imo. Its best that the players who get involved the most get the points

Also how are you feeling those HX nerfs?

Cant say iv notised anything tbh.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Tibe on June 30, 2013, 11:27:32 am
I get quite alot of points, but thats due to the fact im a tipe of shielder that goes all-out balls to the walls in the centre of the battleshitstorm(mostly).
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Gurnisson on June 30, 2013, 11:58:38 am
You get lower, but not that much really. I've got tons of valour as xbowman (15/24), HX and archer. Getting valour as 15/27 or 15/30 xbowman on the other hand, is borderline impossible.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Mae. on June 30, 2013, 03:49:15 pm
how does it work, seems to favor melee more than ranged.

As you see on this ss all the ranged seem to have around 50% of the Points the melee gets if you look at the kills.
Is it some sort of proximity score they get ?

I also seem to get alot more points if i just kills the horses and ignore the rider.
(click to show/hide)
turn this shit into call of duty already, bro..
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Oberyn on June 30, 2013, 06:02:37 pm
There's a reason melee get proximity points. It's because they are the ones taking all the risk. bundle of sticks HX like yourself spend their entire rounds evading danger as much as possible, and now you whine about not getting valour? Hint, look up the definition of the word "valour", then think about how it applies to your playstyle.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Siper on June 30, 2013, 09:02:40 pm
It's called valour, going up front and facing the enemy takes more courage than sitting in the back shooting sticks at them.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: //saxon on June 30, 2013, 09:04:45 pm
well the reason your not getting alot of points is because your on horse, you are no where near the fighting, and each kill gives about 5 points average, goes for everyone.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Krax on July 01, 2013, 12:27:22 am
There's a reason melee get proximity points. It's because they are the ones taking all the risk. bundle of sticks HX like yourself spend their entire rounds evading danger as much as possible, and now you whine about not getting valour? Hint, look up the definition of the word "valour", then think about how it applies to your playstyle.

And where did i complain about geting valor or whine. i just wondered how it worked. So so hatefull, just because i make you walk at times.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Akynos on July 01, 2013, 06:02:12 am
Currently playing HA. Played melee for all my gens, and I can say that the scoring system is in disfavour towards ranged. Made a topic about that.

There's a reason melee get proximity points. It's because they are the ones taking all the risk. bundle of sticks HX like yourself spend their entire rounds evading danger as much as possible, and now you whine about not getting valour? Hint, look up the definition of the word "valour", then think about how it applies to your playstyle.

What you don't seem to get is that the relation between difficulty and rewards concerning melee and ranged are quite different. All you have to do in melee to get valour is to stay close to the fight, hit a few times while ensuring you don't get hit, and kill a guy or two. Voila.

Get valour as a ranged? You got to ensure that almost every shot lands and survive the whole round. As a HA, as soon as your horse is dead, you're toast, which in most cases is not very difficult to do.

No one cares about the definition of valour. Getting points because you are fiddling with the butthole of those on the front line should not give you points.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Adamar on July 01, 2013, 06:20:18 am
I never understood why the devs would want to make rushers rush more. Melee players are already eager to fight in close quarers, its why they chose that class, why reward them for that? Why not reward manual blocks and a successful hit rate instead as a mesure of skill?
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Siper on July 01, 2013, 06:28:59 am
Currently playing HA. Played melee for all my gens, and I can say that the scoring system is in disfavour towards ranged. Made a topic about that.

What you don't seem to get is that the relation between difficulty and rewards concerning melee and ranged are quite different. All you have to do in melee to get valour is to stay close to the fight, hit a few times while ensuring you don't get hit, and kill a guy or two. Voila.

Get valour as a ranged? You got to ensure that almost every shot lands and survive the whole round. As a HA, as soon as your horse is dead, you're toast, which in most cases is not very difficult to do.

No one cares about the definition of valour. Getting points because you are fiddling with the butthole of those on the front line should not give you points.

(click to show/hide)

Most bias post so far, certainly takes more than a few swings and a kill to get valour. But ok! Us front row meleers have to insure we don't miss our swings and at the same time make sure we don't get hit. Oh! We also have to try and survive the round! I must say you have some incredible arguments in favor of archery.
Anyway, do you really think sitting on top of a building, and shooting arrows taking a lot less risk than those in the front line takes any courage/valour? As for holding your shield up in strat, good job! Too bad strat has nothing to do..

Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Siper on July 01, 2013, 06:32:23 am
I never understood why the devs would want to make rushers rush more. Melee players are already eager to fight in close quarers, its why they chose that class, why reward them for that? Why not reward manual blocks and a successful hit rate instead as a mesure of skill?

Are you saying players who successfully manual block and slay their enemy aren't rewarded?

Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: San on July 01, 2013, 06:38:14 am
If you attack other cav, you get tons of points.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Akynos on July 01, 2013, 07:59:09 am
Most bias post so far, certainly takes more than a few swings and a kill to get valour. But ok! Us front row meleers have to insure we don't miss our swings and at the same time make sure we don't get hit. Oh! We also have to try and survive the round! I must say you have some incredible arguments in favor of archery.
Anyway, do you really think sitting on top of a building, and shooting arrows taking a lot less risk than those in the front line takes any courage/valour? As for holding your shield up in strat, good job! Too bad strat has nothing to do..

I get the impression that you are one of those average players that rushes and has no battle awareness. The fact that you point out that one mustn't ''miss his swings'' suggests that even more , as good players hardly miss their attacks and ensure their safety. Therefore I understand why you find it so hard to get valour. if you can't survive an even fight in a front line you simply suck.
"Sitting on a building" is not possible in battle anymore really, and you'd know that had you had experience. Staying far from the front line means reduced damage and often vulnerability to other ranged as well as cavalry. In your perfect melee world ranged have pinpoint accuracy and are safely shooting from miles away. Did I mention that they have no armor? So when it comes to "surviving the round" , armored melee has more space for mistakes. Ranged do not.

Finally, strat has all to do with it, as it uses the same score system.

Conclusion: QQ mad Cuz bad. Buff ranged scoring.


Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Smoothrich on July 01, 2013, 08:04:30 am
I just respecced hoplite, I've been this class for all of a few hours and still teamwound all the time/don't have hoplite thrust abuse down that good, and I am literally the number 1 person on the scoreboard in points 9/10 times, and usually have one of the best KDs too, with neverending valor. Even if I don't get many kills, I feel like I am getting double or more the points I should be

tl;dr nerf hoplites
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Siper on July 01, 2013, 08:43:52 am
I get the impression that you are one of those average players that rushes and has no battle awareness. The fact that you point out that one mustn't ''miss his swings'' suggests that even more , as good players hardly miss their attacks and ensure their safety. Therefore I understand why you find it so hard to get valour. if you can't survive an even fight in a front line you simply suck.
"Sitting on a building" is not possible in battle anymore really, and you'd know that had you had experience. Staying far from the front line means reduced damage and often vulnerability to other ranged as well as cavalry. In your perfect melee world ranged have pinpoint accuracy and are safely shooting from miles away. Did I mention that they have no armor? So when it comes to "surviving the round" , armored melee has more space for mistakes. Ranged do not.

Finally, strat has all to do with it, as it uses the same score system.

Conclusion: QQ mad Cuz bad. Buff ranged scoring.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GzXVqwYHVE

Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Akynos on July 01, 2013, 09:00:42 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GzXVqwYHVE

I don't care about what you think my reasoning is mate, actually, I don't even give a shit about what you think at all as it won't matter a single bit, but if you wish to believe that it is hard to get points through front line melee and that archery is easy then that's fine by me! :D
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Siper on July 01, 2013, 09:35:57 am
I don't care about what you think my reasoning is mate, actually, I don't even give a shit about what you think at all as it won't matter a single bit, but if you wish to believe that it is hard to get points through front line melee and that archery is easy then that's fine by me! :D

Can you point out where I said that it is hard to get points through front line melee and that archery is easy? What you said is that range can only get valour if they, and I quote, "ensure that almost every shot lands and survive the whole round.", and I just pointed out that is exactly what meleers have to do to obtain valour.

I did say that archers take less risk by being able to sit further away from the enemy and shoot at them, which(in my opinion) is a less courageous action than being upfront taking blows. So, I don't think archers(if sitting far away) should receive the same bonus points as meleers for being nearer to the action.

Anyway, I don't care if you care, but don't reply making things up.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: XyNox on July 01, 2013, 10:37:34 am
Can you point out where I said that it is hard to get points through front line melee and that archery is easy? What you said is that range can only get valour if they, and I quote, "ensure that almost every shot lands and survive the whole round.", and I just pointed out that is exactly what meleers have to do to obtain valour.

I did say that archers take less risk by being able to sit further away from the enemy and shoot at them, which(in my opinion) is a less courageous action than being upfront taking blows. So, I don't think archers(if sitting far away) should receive the same bonus points as meleers for being nearer to the action.

Anyway, I don't care if you care, but don't reply making things up.

First of all you cant call Akynos biased towards archery ... lol.

Second, I dont know whether the point system has been changed after the patch but pre-patch even a HEADSHOT KILL did give me about one single point quite often. Clean arrow hits on enemies even granted me a stunning ZERO points every now and then.

So even if I have enough battlefield awareness to dodge all the oneshotting bolts that fly toward my direction, dodge all the oneshotting lances that are thrusted and couched into my direction, all the horses that can easily bump a big chunk out of my HP, dodge all the other archers who can 2 shot me and then also make sure that most my arrows hit, while making sure not to hit any teammates in the process, then I end up with maybe 20 points for the shooting alone, maybe 30 for a round.

However, when I switch to my peasantarmor longspear alt, see a big melee blob and jump into the middle JUST FOR THE LOLS, I die in about 0.2 seconds, havent hit anyone, havent blocked anything, havent done anything worth for the team, Boom ... I get like 15 points for this 1 second of retardedness. And with this I see a big discrepancy between battlefield value / score.

However, in the End I dont care that much about points and wouldnt even mind if it stays that way. Probably even better to counter ranged spam. Since melee encounters are unavoidable anyway at some point in the round, even for archers, there is enough opportunity to farm some points as it stands :)
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Akynos on July 01, 2013, 10:50:04 am
Can you point out where I said that it is hard to get points through front line melee and that archery is easy? What you said is that range can only get valour if they, and I quote, "ensure that almost every shot lands and survive the whole round.", and I just pointed out that is exactly what meleers have to do to obtain valour.

I did say that archers take less risk by being able to sit further away from the enemy and shoot at them, which(in my opinion) is a less courageous action than being upfront taking blows. So, I don't think archers(if sitting far away) should receive the same bonus points as meleers for being nearer to the action.

Anyway, I don't care if you care, but don't reply making things up.


Xynox said it better than me.I used to think like you, then I played archer.  Then I realised that you get almost no points per shot. I could, like Xynox, spend no more than 20 seconds in melee, hit a few guys and have valour.
Until now I never got valour as an archer yet I hit them twice as often. The amount of brain juice I have to pour to keep up with meleeists is astounding.
If you keep arguing that this is not true then sorry but you are an inexperienced player.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Gurnisson on July 01, 2013, 12:19:06 pm
Seriously, if you have that much problem getting valour as any kind of ranged (bar 15 27/30 xbowman or 5 PD horse archer not going for horses), you're just bad. The score is not merely as bad as some are trying to portray here.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Grumpy_Nic on July 01, 2013, 12:43:23 pm
Seriously, if you have that much problem getting valour as any kind of ranged (bar 15 27/30 xbowman or 5 PD horse archer not going for horses), you're just bad. The score is not merely as bad as some are trying to portray here.

I never get valour as xbow. I have 14 bolts in total and I get 2 points per hit, 1 point if its a long-range shot. That makes 28 points if I hit every single one at close range. But I dont always take sure hits, I often try to go for HX which are very hard to hit or also other "hard to hit" targets. If I take a second pack of bolts I'm as slow as a 36/3 tincan with my 12/27 build. I think headshots should at least deliver one bonus point.

I dont need valour but sometimes I see that with for example 8:0 KD I am almost at the bottom of the score board while someone in melee with 2:2 KD has three times the points. Would be nice to be at least in the middle of the score board.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: bagge on July 01, 2013, 01:09:27 pm
Seriously, if you have that much problem getting valour as any kind of ranged (bar 15 27/30 xbowman or 5 PD horse archer not going for horses), you're just bad. The score is not merely as bad as some are trying to portray here.

It is bad. Especially in sieges.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: karasu on July 01, 2013, 02:04:03 pm
   On my gens of ranged play (which were too many..) I used to get valor very often, specially in the new system (strangely) and being Xbower. It all depends on the way you play the game.

   Why should a player that kites to death or hides 800m away hoping for some lucky landed hits be rewarded with this over players that actually are in the heat of the battle contributing way more?

   Then again, making archery hybridization viable once more (as it used to be some years ago) would reduce all this drama, and even the number of kiting/hiding players. Xbow hybrid is till very viable, archery, not really, at least until level 31+.

   It's all part of the secret psychological balancing measures.  :wink:
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Akynos on July 01, 2013, 03:22:45 pm
Had an xbow hybrid myself some time ago. Made three times more points defending myself with my sword than I actually did with the show. Then again I'm much better at melee but hey, I know how to aim.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Oberyn on July 01, 2013, 04:22:45 pm
No one cares about the definition of valour.

Are we talking about the points system here? What other use are points for? You get lots of em, you get valour. Getting kills helps your team win, getting points helps you get an extra multiplier, occasionaly. It's not about stroking your dick in pleasure because you happen to be higher up on a list than some other douchebag. So yes, the definition of "valour" is kind of the whole point. Oh boohoo, you have 8 kills from playing like a complete bundle of sticks and didn't die once (because of aforementioned playing like a complete bundle of sticks) but you don't like how many points you have? Does it bruise your ego or something? I'd think helping your team win the round (by being a complete bundle of sticks) would be enough.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on July 01, 2013, 04:34:22 pm
The more health the person you're killing has, the more points you get (at least that's what it seems like to me).  AKA the more damage you do, the more points you get.  Up to about 5 or 6 points maximum for people with quite a bit of health.  Horses also give about 5 or 6 points to kill them. 

I can see the justification for giving people points who are literally 2 feet from an enemy who gets hit or killed.  Being that close to someone makes them have to worry about you, not to mention it's very likely you just hit the guy right before he died (maybe even causing him to be stunned while someone else killed him). 

On horseback as a lancer I also lose out on a lot of proximity points (mainly noticed in strategus).  Gotta make up for it by hitting that many more enemies. 

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Also if you have a problem with the points system, look up the definition and synonyms of Valor.  You'll see why being an archer or back stabbing cavalry isn't that valorous.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Swaggart on July 01, 2013, 04:40:16 pm
What you don't seem to get is that the relation between difficulty and rewards concerning melee and ranged are quite different. All you have to do in melee to get valour is to stay close to the fight, hit a few times while ensuring you don't get hit, and kill a guy or two. Voila.

I like how you make this seem as if it's no big deal. Sure, as a shielder line fighting is easy and valour farming is a joke. But for all the other classes that can't block two swing directions simultaneously it's far more hazardous. Not to mention with the hoplite/long polearm spam lately, it's incredibly easy to die in a line fight as anything other than a shielder. Hell, even as a shielder all that has to happen is that mauler overheading through your shield followed by a stab from a pike. If this doesn't happen in EU, it happens plenty in NA.

My favourite? When a friendly thrower tosses a jarid in the back of your head, causing you to stagger forward into your death.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Macropus on July 01, 2013, 04:41:20 pm
Anyway, do you really think sitting on top of a building, and shooting arrows taking a lot less risk than those in the front line takes any courage/valour?
What the fuck are you talking about, lol. Courage in a video game? Cool story.

As an average archer you're constantly at a very high risk of dying (unless you have a few teammates that pay attention and guard you), more than average melee because of lower awareness, low armour and low maneuverability.
- Arbalest shot - BOOM! You're dead.
- Cav couching you - you're pretty much often dead.
- Ninja cutting your head from behind - you're dead.
- Agi shielder walking towards you - GTX.

You people who think all archers do is staying on the safe roof pew-pew'ing arrows at enemies, should really try playing it for one gen. I did, and now I can't wait for another 100k exp to retire back into melee.


PS: saying "melee should get more valour because valour is about being brave and melee is brave" - makes no sense at all btw.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Akynos on July 01, 2013, 04:52:45 pm
I like how you make this seem as if it's no big deal. Sure, as a shielder line fighting is easy and valour farming is a joke. But for all the other classes that can't block two swing directions simultaneously it's far more hazardous. Not to mention with the hoplite/long polearm spam lately, it's incredibly easy to die in a line fight as anything other than a shielder.

If you are on the front-line and you are not a shielder you are doing it wrong, as for sure you'll get killed in less than a second. Once you get those silly mistakes out of the way, valour is easy to get, unless your team gets zerged from the beginning.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Swaggart on July 01, 2013, 05:23:25 pm
First you say stay close to the fight, then you say stay away from the fight.

If you're close enough to get proximity points you're close enough to get hit. And if your strategy is just to get proximity points and do your best not to get hit, you're not helping your team at all.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Siper on July 01, 2013, 05:45:34 pm
What the fuck are you talking about, lol. Courage in a video game? Cool story.

As an average archer you're constantly at a very high risk of dying (unless you have a few teammates that pay attention and guard you), more than average melee because of lower awareness, low armour and low maneuverability.
- Arbalest shot - BOOM! You're dead.
- Cav couching you - you're pretty much often dead.
- Ninja cutting your head from behind - you're dead.
- Agi shielder walking towards you - GTX.

You people who think all archers do is staying on the safe roof pew-pew'ing arrows at enemies, should really try playing it for one gen. I did, and now I can't wait for another 100k exp to retire back into melee.


PS: saying "melee should get more valour because valour is about being brave and melee is brave" - makes no sense at all btw.

Meleers run the the same risk for all the points you made:
- Arbalest shot - BOOM! You're dead.
- Cav couching you - you're pretty much often dead.
- Ninja cutting your head from behind - you're dead.
- Agi shielder walking towards you - GTX.
-Bonus:
 The risk of being in front taking the blows from the enemy, Defending your archers ass like you said.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: karasu on July 01, 2013, 05:45:59 pm
It's only 4 directions to melee manual block. Sometimes only 2, or even 1.

A lil' bit of practice vs bots should make this part easy. :)
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Grumpy_Nic on July 01, 2013, 06:07:40 pm
Are we talking about the points system here? What other use are points for? You get lots of em, you get valour. Getting kills helps your team win, getting points helps you get an extra multiplier, occasionaly. It's not about stroking your dick in pleasure because you happen to be higher up on a list than some other douchebag. So yes, the definition of "valour" is kind of the whole point. Oh boohoo, you have 8 kills from playing like a complete bundle of sticks and didn't die once (because of aforementioned playing like a complete bundle of sticks) but you don't like how many points you have? Does it bruise your ego or something? I'd think helping your team win the round (by being a complete bundle of sticks) would be enough.

No reason to act like a complete asshole and call me bundle of sticks. I am helping my team, maybe not by performing backstabbing horse driveby but from a bit more far away. The ranged scoring system is simply crap, especially because long range shots that are harder to perform are rewarded with less points.
I said I dont need valour, still I like not being at the bottom of the score board. The scoring system favours close range attacks, for xbow it means that you get more points if you run into a fight, shotgun someone and retreat for reloading. This again means you need high agility for running speed.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Akynos on July 01, 2013, 06:22:26 pm
Meleers run the the same risk for all the points you made:
- Arbalest shot - BOOM! You're dead. Nope
- Cav couching you - you're pretty much often dead.Yeah. But you got a shield
- Ninja cutting your head from behind - you're dead.Lolno
- Agi shielder walking towards you - GTX.Are you even reading what you write?
-Bonus:
 The risk of being in front taking the blows from the enemy, Defending your archers ass like you said. Bonus: you get points for being in the middle with your forcefieldshield up
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Stormcrow on July 01, 2013, 08:16:23 pm
As an archer I get valor all the time. It definitely does not need a buff for ranged players. The whole point is to get get everyone involved in a battle rather than having ranged sitting on the sidelines shooting in. If you dont get valor as a ranged player than try to be more active in battles, shoot more horses and kill people using melee weapons when possible.
Its easier to change your build or play style to match the game than it is to get the devs to change game to your liking just so you can get an extra multi every once in a while.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Adam_Bomb on July 01, 2013, 08:28:12 pm
The scoring system for ranged is broke, end of story.  I used an arb for over 2 years, and my kills always kept me in the top 10 at least.  After the new scoring system was put in place, my k/d stayed the same, but I had a hard time getting anywhere near the top.  Pissed me off enough to respec to my current build (NA players know what it is...). 

Now, although I don't get NEAR as many kills, I'm regularly in the top 10 by just holding my shield up and well, you know...  Who cares about the definition of valour, the scoreboard needs to reflect your contribution to the battle, and for ranged, it most certainly does not.  Just yesterday, my arbalest alt (can't leave it completely) was 8-1 at the end of the map, NO tw's(which take off too many points anyway) and a whopping score of 25 points...  Needs to be fixed!

Stupid

edit: may be different for archers, my experience is with an arb. and NO, ranged should not have to melee to get points, unless melee has to use arrows to get them as well...
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: SirCymro_Crusader on July 01, 2013, 08:33:20 pm
Playing as a ranged/melee hybrid i can understand both sides of the arguement. A typical headshot kill gets you 3 points, no more. Let's say someone has full health and you 1 shot kill at the head - that is 3 points. If a melee guy goes in and hits him twice to kill him, he gets usually 10+ points.

If i then charge in with melee because the guy has survived and kill him with 2 hits due to weakness of my STR then i add 3 + normally around 15 points. This is where the discrepancies come from, ranged do have a high risk when in melee or on the proximity, furthermore they are always bashed upon for being ranged. There needs to be some balance, headshots should score more than 3 points and it should reflect damage more than just 'ping headshot 3 points lucky you'
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on July 01, 2013, 09:03:21 pm
The scoring system for ranged is broke, end of story.  I used an arb for over 2 years, and my kills always kept me in the top 10 at least.  After the new scoring system was put in place, my k/d stayed the same, but I had a hard time getting anywhere near the top.  Pissed me off enough to respec to my current build (NA players know what it is...). 

Now, although I don't get NEAR as many kills, I'm regularly in the top 10 by just holding my shield up and well, you know...  Who cares about the definition of valour, the scoreboard needs to reflect your contribution to the battle, and for ranged, it most certainly does not.  Just yesterday, my arbalest alt (can't leave it completely) was 8-1 at the end of the map, NO tw's(which take off too many points anyway) and a whopping score of 25 points...  Needs to be fixed!

Stupid

edit: may be different for archers, my experience is with an arb. and NO, ranged should not have to melee to get points, unless melee has to use arrows to get them as well...

If I thrust my lance into 8 people, and kill all 8 of them, I'd also have a score around 25 points.  The thing you may not be realizing, people in melee hit a lot of people without the enemy dying.

So while you hit 8 people and all 8 die, someone else may have 8 kills and have hit enemies 20+ times in melee where the enemy didn't die.  It's pretty common for me to only kill about 1/3 (maybe less) of the people I ride by and hit with my lance.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Adam_Bomb on July 01, 2013, 09:46:42 pm
If I thrust my lance into 8 people, and kill all 8 of them, I'd also have a score around 25 points.  The thing you may not be realizing, people in melee hit a lot of people without the enemy dying.

So while you hit 8 people and all 8 die, someone else may have 8 kills and have hit enemies 20+ times in melee where the enemy didn't die.  It's pretty common for me to only kill about 1/3 (maybe less) of the people I ride by and hit with my lance.

First off, I never said all the shots were 1 hit kills, secondly it sounds like you think one swing of a melee weapon should get the same score as one bolt hit. A bolt that takes ~8 seconds to reload, and does way more damage  I play with a melee character now and am NOWHERE as effective as my arb character and get double the score, what more do you need to hear?  Try it out yourself.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Bryggan on July 01, 2013, 10:07:18 pm
A good shielder will try intercept blows against his teammates.  You let the 2 hander jump ahead and smack the enemy, then rush in front of him to stop the counter attacks.  Sometimes I'll rush into the middle of the enemy clump and spin around shield up  to get their front line guys to turn around exposing their backs.  If they don't, I go for the hit.  In those tight battles I often get a lot of hits in, but few kills.  I also know I'm keeping the deadly guys alive.

And that, sir, is awfully valourous of me.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Adam_Bomb on July 01, 2013, 10:13:38 pm
I'm still waiting to hear someone say my 12 shield 12 ath build is effective and deserving of being near the top of the scoreboard...
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Bryggan on July 01, 2013, 10:25:33 pm
Nice! You could zip around the fighters shield up just getting in everyone's way and make mega-points!  And you can have a lot of fun ctr-Ming the hundreds of team hits you'd get.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Adam_Bomb on July 01, 2013, 10:41:31 pm
Nice! You could zip around the fighters shield up just getting in everyone's way and make mega-points!  And you can have a lot of fun ctr-Ming the hundreds of team hits you'd get.

LOL thats actually a pretty good description... never said it wasn't fun :) Most of my kills are backstabs or people typing
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Elindor on July 01, 2013, 11:12:03 pm
Wow, this has gotten pretty heated :)

Couple things:

- Score system is better than none at all imho, used to JUST be kills
- I'm pretty sure they are still working on the final system and multi's will be determined by more than just winning or losing then.
- I do think that one small tweak to the system could be to actually give a few more points for kills/dmg or a few less for proximity, not sure...just a thought.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: MrShine on July 01, 2013, 11:57:50 pm
The next time you are in a strat battle take a look at the KD of players, and then take a look at their position on the scoreboard.

The guys that are going like 30-4 in the middle/lower end of the scoreboard?  Those are xbowers & archers.
The guys that are 25-30 near the top of the scoreboard?  Those are melee.

It's painfully obvious (I thought to everyone but I guess not?) that scoring for ranged is broken when compared to a melee class.  I didn't even think this was a question.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Cyranule on July 02, 2013, 12:10:50 am
How about a straight 1:1 of damage - points

An archer headshots some mindless melee with 20 health out of 50? Archer gets 20 points. 
Same would go for melee and cavalry of course. 
Valour system would need to be tweaked something along the lines of top three get it.

It would open a lot of eyes.  Mostly those who feel ranged is underpowered and constantly over nerfed.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Adam_Bomb on July 02, 2013, 12:13:21 am
How about a straight 1:1 of damage - points

An archer headshots some mindless melee with 20 health out of 50? Archer gets 20 points. 
Same would go for melee and cavalry of course. 
Valour system would need to be tweaked something along the lines of top three get it.

It would open a lot of eyes.  Mostly those who feel ranged is underpowered and constantly over nerfed.

Honestly don't think this is a bad idea.  Seems like this is how it should have been all along.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Zlisch_The_Butcher on July 02, 2013, 01:01:04 am
How about a straight 1:1 of damage - points

An archer headshots some mindless melee with 20 health out of 50? Archer gets 20 points. 
Same would go for melee and cavalry of course. 
Valour system would need to be tweaked something along the lines of top three get it.

It would open a lot of eyes.  Mostly those who feel ranged is underpowered and constantly over nerfed.
Teamhits should give -10:1 of the damage to your points then, otherwise teamhitting amounts will be crazy.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Siper on July 02, 2013, 01:24:38 am
I'd like to make another point- You know how you barely get points for killing naked/low armored folks? Ever notice how much you get targeted by arrows when you are poorly armored? I think archers tend to target only the lowly armored enemy just for the sake of kills, then complain about high kd/low points ratio. Not saying all archers do it, but I do think it's something to take into consideration. I'm also fairly certain people get most of their points based on the damage they inflict on the enemy, there is no unfairness.

Eh, someone correct me if I'm wrong.. do archers not get the same points for damage as melee? if they do the exact same damage?
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Bryggan on July 02, 2013, 02:55:53 am
They do, its just they're complaining they don't get proximity points near kills.  Though they help melee get it by shooting right into close fights the odd time they don't hit their own teammates.  Personally I love the proximity points.  It rewards you for charging right into the melee, rather than waiting for nice safe cheap shots.  It also makes it worth it to keep fighting when vastly outnumbered, spinning around and getting the enemy's TW points (I think it works that way), rather than running away leaving your few buddy's to cover your retreat.

The extra points are for the risks you take.  In melee if you miss a shot there's a good chance you'll die.  Ranged can miss every single shot and still be the last guy on the team and running away.  The guys who get valour consistently are usually the best players.  Unless a person has 12 ath and 12 shield skill, a mediocre player will usually die in those intense close combat conflicts.  With friends and enemies swinging madly you really need a good feel of who's who and where.  It's best to hold back and go for the cheap shots.

I love having good archer support, I love killing a guy after he's stunned by an arrow, but if I'm the one who's hit, I'm the one who's dead.  And after you're dead you don't get any more points.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Adamar on July 02, 2013, 03:19:54 am
Lol, the same biased anti-ranged bullshit over the years.
Where you people even here when the damage stats where released when ranged was 'overpowered'.

How can people even dare to suggest ranged does the same damage as melee?
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Bryggan on July 02, 2013, 04:43:04 am
Um, did you read my post?  I love archers.  But just like melee and cav, I hate the ones that kill me.  I even feel a little ashamed when I get head shotted and it only takes 40% of my health.  I just don't think they're all that valourous.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: MrShine on July 02, 2013, 05:09:50 am
Eh, someone correct me if I'm wrong.. do archers not get the same points for damage as melee? if they do the exact same damage?

No, they definitely don't. I'm not sure how I could confirm that, but I typically get 0-2 points per arrow hit.  Meanwhile I've gotten 8 points in a single stab before when hitting a horse & rider as an example. 
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Siper on July 02, 2013, 05:31:12 am
No, they definitely don't. I'm not sure how I could confirm that, but I typically get 0-2 points per arrow hit.  Meanwhile I've gotten 8 points in a single stab before when hitting a horse & rider as an example.

You misunderstand me... Obviously a swing (or a stab) does more damage than a single arrow, but I'm talking about the damage inflicted on the enemy. Melee and Archers (if I'm correct) receive the same amount of score points from damage inflicted. Example: Melee does a swing which inflicts 20 damage, and archer shoots 3 arrows that inflicts 20 damage, both receive the same score, it would be logical/fair.

It's what cyranule suggests, but I think it's already in place, but still waiting on someone to call out my error.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Adam_Bomb on July 02, 2013, 05:48:25 am
It's what cyranule suggests, but I think it's already in place, but still waiting on someone to call out my error.

I don't think I ever remember getting more than 5 points for a one shot kill (and not just peasants) with my mw steel bolts and mw arbalest. Pretty sure there is some kind of cap on ranged points per hit.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Cyranule on July 02, 2013, 06:48:34 am
You misunderstand me... Obviously a swing (or a stab) does more damage than a single arrow, but I'm talking about the damage inflicted on the enemy. Melee and Archers (if I'm correct) receive the same amount of score points from damage inflicted. Example: Melee does a swing which inflicts 20 damage, and archer shoots 3 arrows that inflicts 20 damage, both receive the same score, it would be logical/fair.

It's what cyranule suggests, but I think it's already in place, but still waiting on someone to call out my error.

Melee get more points for doing the same damage.  Scoring a headshot gives 1-2 points?
Just change the point system to only equal the amount of damage done without proximity points. 
At the very least this will show what classes are dealing the most damage.  Then we can have a real discussion on risk vs reward for playstyles. 
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: XyNox on July 02, 2013, 06:56:39 am
I'd like to make another point- You know how you barely get points for killing naked/low armored folks? Ever notice how much you get targeted by arrows when you are poorly armored? I think archers tend to target only the lowly armored enemy just for the sake of kills, then complain about high kd/low points ratio. Not saying all archers do it, but I do think it's something to take into consideration. I'm also fairly certain people get most of their points based on the damage they inflict on the enemy, there is no unfairness.

Eh, someone correct me if I'm wrong.. do archers not get the same points for damage as melee? if they do the exact same damage?

Everytime I see a lightarmored enemy in the enemy blob I ask myself whether I should target him first or not. He could be

a) a poor peasant who simply cant afford armor, thereby not posing the biggest threat.
b) an experienced player who can zip in and out of combat due to low armor weight to aid his teammates, thereby posing a large threat.

Fighting 2 people at once is always harder than fighting one person. As reducing enemy numbers as quickly as possible is helpful either way, I usually go for the kill if there is no other target around that needs to be focused in the first place ( enemy cav, enemy horse ranged, enemy that is just about to backstab teammate etc. ) because it means a fast removal of a potential threat.

Still, the direct point gain from ranged hits is simply not the same as for melee hits and I get where this comes from. Instead of proximity points like melees get, I would like to see a point multiplier for ranged combat. As an archer I can shoot some stationary guy in the back of his head from close distance or I can headshot kill cav riding at full speed over half the map and the scoring system ( afaik ) doesnt handle those shots differently at all.

I would like to so see the distance and the movementspeed of the target to be taken into account. Even native singleplayer kinda has this feature with the yellow "shot difficulty" popping up in the bottom left corner, although beeing a lot more vague I imagine. Also bonus points for every hit/kill that occurs during the arrowstagger you caused with your hit would be fair I guess ( respectively, minus points when you do it to a teammate of course ).
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Siper on July 02, 2013, 07:33:16 am
Everytime I see a lightarmored enemy in the enemy blob I ask myself whether I should target him first or not. He could be

a) a poor peasant who simply cant afford armor, thereby not posing the biggest threat.
b) an experienced player who can zip in and out of combat due to low armor weight to aid his teammates, thereby posing a large threat.

Fighting 2 people at once is always harder than fighting one person. As reducing enemy numbers as quickly as possible is helpful either way, I usually go for the kill if there is no other target around that needs to be focused in the first place ( enemy cav, enemy horse ranged, enemy that is just about to backstab teammate etc. ) because it means a fast removal of a potential threat.

Still, the direct point gain from ranged hits is simply not the same as for melee hits and I get where this comes from. Instead of proximity points like melees get, I would like to see a point multiplier for ranged combat. As an archer I can shoot some stationary guy in the back of his head from close distance or I can headshot kill cav riding at full speed over half the map and the scoring system ( afaik ) doesnt handle those shots differently at all.

I would like to so see the distance and the movementspeed of the target to be taken into account. Even native singleplayer kinda has this feature with the yellow "shot difficulty" popping up in the bottom left corner, although beeing a lot more vague I imagine. Also bonus points for every hit/kill that occurs during the arrowstagger you caused with your hit would be fair I guess ( respectively, minus points when you do it to a teammate of course ).

Well ok, targeting low armored folks is actually not a bad option, but I think it does create a misconception that archery gives less points. It seems to me that none of you have solid info on whether archery gives the same points as melee for inflicted damage. I'm tempted to try to run some tests myself when I get a chance..
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Adamar on July 02, 2013, 10:48:03 pm
Please do!
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Mala on July 03, 2013, 12:15:51 am
...

Fighting 2 people at once is always harder than fighting one person. ...

personally i find it a way easier to fight two enemies than one.
one opponent alone has a heavy focus on the defense, but if there are two, then they will get careless a way faster.

anyway, with regard to the points. as meele fighter you have to go up close to a lot of pointy things, as archer you are save somewhere in the back and then you want valor points for a killing of an enemy who can not even harm you at this range?
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Tojo on July 03, 2013, 12:38:10 am
historically archers were of lower social caste than a melee would be. Achers were highly trained in their art, but most were peasants who were skilled hunters. Therefore if an archer were to get more points than a knight it would bring dishonor to his famry. Thats why archers get less points...
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Adamar on July 03, 2013, 01:28:28 am
Most of the feudal armies where spear/pikemen levied as a meatshield for the more usefull classes, being archers xbowmen and knights. Overall a trained archer or a peasant significant enought to be given a crossbow where more important than the average melee unit.
Title: Re: the scoring system
Post by: Tojo on July 03, 2013, 03:17:34 am
Most of the feudal armies where spear/pikemen levied as a meatshield for the more usefull classes, being archers xbowmen and knights. Overall a trained archer or a peasant significant enought to be given a crossbow where more important than the average melee unit.

you cant use real history here  :P