seems to favor melee more than ranged.
Is it some sort of proximity score they get ?
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?
how does it work, seems to favor melee more than ranged.turn this shit into call of duty already, bro..
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)
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.
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.
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)
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
No one cares about the definition of valour.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
How about a straight 1:1 of damage - pointsTeamhits should give -10:1 of the damage to your points then, otherwise teamhitting amounts will be crazy.
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.
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.
It's what cyranule suggests, but I think it's already in place, but still waiting on someone to call out my error.
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.
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 ).
...
Fighting 2 people at once is always harder than fighting one person. ...
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.