Could just reset it back to x5 if no valor is gotten that round.
Encouraging playing well is always good.
Alternatives:
If already at x5, you keep a "valour point" which gets used the next time you would lose your multi.
If already at x5, you instantly gain exp tick(s) based on player count and score difference.
If already at x5, you keep a "valour point" which gets used the next time you would lose your multi.
Instead of going back to x1 just set the multi back by 1 or 2 every time you lose. It's so annoying to lose an x5 you helped earn and go back to x1 just because of a shitty round. If you have to earn multipliers 1 at a time it seems like you should lose them that way too
Either the point system has to be changed to better reflect your contribution to the teamThis, I don't think there is anything conceptually wrong with the score system. I think it just needs to reward more aspects of what can actually be considered "supporting ones team", and reward less, some of the others(simply following someone around).
But... archers and xbows dont DESERVE valor, at ANY point.Pretty sure the word valor was arbitrarily chosen to represent the function. That is to say, ranged certainly deserve the same rights to a multiplier that melee/cav have.
Score is not a good way to calculate one's contribution to the team. Cav has easy time getting valour, as do melee classes when they move as a group. But archers, xbows and so on rarely get points for their contributions to the team. Same for guys harassing enemy ranged either on foot (ninjas) or as cav (melee/ranged cav) or covering your own ranged from those threats. On siege the score system actually promotes stupid tactics like defending the front walls instead of the flag.
Either the point system has to be changed to better reflect your contribution to the team or extra multis for "best players" should not be a thing. Getting valour in a good team is already many times easier for a mediocre player than it is in the losing team.
Cav only get their valor from damaging opponents personally. They hardly ever get proximity points. Not sure how you can say this about cav.
Cav only get their valor from damaging opponents personally. They hardly ever get proximity points. Not sure how you can say this about cav.
I think a cap is necessary to avoid abusing the system, and to have a hard limit on the xp/gold you generate per round
Maybe after x5 you get some modifier to your repair chance. So x6 would be 0.9x repair chance. Or you lose less multi on round loss
Valour works ok imo, team players and main damage dealers get rewards, which encourages teamplay and gives a reward to players that are valuable to their team
They could make valour reward ranged players more but then you will get more campers and anti team players
Pretty sure the word valor was arbitrarily chosen to represent the function. That is to say, ranged certainly deserve the same rights to a multiplier that melee/cav have.I disagree, ranged is low risk/low reward atm. You sit back and shoot into groups of people, get a few kills maybe and that's pretty much it if they're "playing their role" if they get into melee that isn't good, they aren't supposed to, infantry and cav have a much higher chance of dying due to ranged, infantry, cav etc etc. they do most the work which gets them the points.
Valour calculation does not look only at your team, it looks at the averages of both teams and rewards the players that have twice that average
cRPG is at a point where we can and could forget about "balance" when we speak of character customization possibilities. We are so few left, give the few more fun.The fuck are you talking about? There are plenty of people left, and free respecs/unlooming while keeping the leveling system and looming system would just shit all over everyone who aren't level 34-36 with exactly 9 MWs.
Those who wants to play tincan/plated charger all day can if they want.
- increased XP
- decreased upkeep
- free respec/unlooming
- adding extra gameplay (nudges, commanders, all good things)
- overhauling of strat
Cant hurt :wink:
The fuck are you talking about? There are plenty of people left.
You've been here for some years, how can you honestly say that Zlisch :|I'v been here for some years, at the prime of when I started we'd have 120 people on EU_1, 20 people on EU_4, and 90 or so people on EU_2 for about 5 hours a day. We got about half the people we used to have, the main population groups we've lost (I don't know about siege) were the EU_4 community (cause devs killed our servers, fuck even I play in NA and siege instead of EU_1 when I can) and GK anyhow (often had 20-30 people on at once, 1-2 of which still play), the EU_4 loss doesn't affect EU_1, and I doubt most of us miss GK. Saying that we barely keep the siege servers alive is complete bullshit, since the respawn time changes there have been more siege players than battle players when battle has around 20-30 players, it's also insanely hypocritical that you complain about dying servers when you play a delaying horsearcher and often along with other horseranged kill EU servers 2-3 hours before they usually die singlehandedly. Also that level 35 with 9 MWs can respec and trade his looms, that also avoids shitting on anyone who isn't level 35 with 9 MWs and making him feel at a big disadvantage.
So when you accept that we have a population that barely keeps 2 EU and 2 NA servers alive, you will think about why the hell should someone keep a lvl 35 build and 9 MW's that he doesnt want to use anymore.(click to show/hide)
The only reason these problems exist is because the valour system has turned into utter bullshit. It used to be losing team only and those who got valour would maintain their multi instead of losing it. No idea why valour is now awarded to the winning team and +1's the multi, it's dumb and unnecessary. Even worse, the losing team star players often do not get valour because they get outscored by the winning team, entirely defeating the purpose of the system. The purpose being, rewarding those players that did a good job but lost because of a bad team.This, this and this so many fucking times. Valour was probably the most stupid idea they ever came up with. And it's not just stupid, it's even completely retarded to give Valour to the winning team. What for? We all know that it's piss easy to do good in a good team. But doing exceptional in a bad team is way harder and actually deserves recognition... Suggestion sucks...
Example for siege: Your team just barely gets a foothold in the defenders castle, you are the only one who gets anywhere. Your 80 score however, which is easily twice the average of your team, is eclipsed by the 100+ scores of multiple attackers who camped a ladder the entire round. Same can happen on battle, where one team's melee rapetrain completely obliterates your team and you got 25 points which is easily twice the average of your team, but they all got 40-50 points with proximity from the rapetrain.
Valour calculation does not look only at your team, it looks at the averages of both teams and rewards the players that have twice that average, which is completely dumb when teams are very skewed. The team that loses gets fucked over twice, because apart from getting wrecked, their star players don't get valour because uneven point distribution between the teams. Therefore only the losing team should get a valour calculation so the valour actually does what it is supposed to do. Save the multi of the people that deserved it.
Your suggestion is terrible even though I would benefit extremely from it. It encourages valour whoring like crazy and it is already bad enough. Doing away with the entire multi system would be the best course anyway.
at the prime of when I started we'd have 120 people on EU_1, 20 people on EU_4, and 90 or so people on EU_2 for about 5 hours a day.
Even though you forget EU_5, Pecores, Nordmenn, melee server and other "special-private" servers, and that they were all completely filled in prime time (you even HAD to go to smaller servers since there was no open slots), you basically provide arguments against yourself.I don't recall what EU_5 used to have, know it was pretty much always empty when I joined though. When Pecores, Nordmen, or the melee only server ha people it was always just the EU4s on another server, and while you had to go to smaller servers that doesn't change the fact that the EU4 community had barely shrinked before the server died, at which point most of us stopped playing, siege is alive and lives well into the night, and besides GK (who everyone hated) the EU_1 playerbase isn't that smaller than before. You're overreacting and being retarded.
The rest of your post provide absolutely 0 insight on the matter at hand, shitposting at its best better done in PM's.(click to show/hide)
The EU4 community had barely shrinked - the EU_1 playerbase isn't that smaller than before.
I wish there was a "player" statistics somewhere that I could refer to... Until then I can only tell you you are blind :P Yeah I'm blind, EU_1 wasn't on 59 players 11am this morning (note that with EU_1 I always state that one major group left, GK, who usually had 20-30 people on when the servers were full, but besides that, not much change) either (ofc there is always the possibility of you thinking I've played longer than I have, but otherwise, you're wrong.
Anyway the "less players, so give us more fun" argument isnt the only reason why you would want to have more freedom to custom your characters (xp/upkeep/looms/respec/retire/etc..), I think it would add more incentive to play, and the valour system should be one of the many thing that keep the playerbase happy. If it was up to me looms and xp and levels and gold would be removed, so don't claim I want to limit customization or that I love griding, your idea is simply a massive fuck you to anyone who bought training lessons, sold their looms for training lessons, retired or respeced at level 34-36, it'll also raise the average level and MWs used at once amount lowering the incentive for new people to stay even further (and yes, staying as a new player was probably harder back in old cRPG, but back then I'm also guessing there were generally more new people, who had new people fun together, and who could stand a chance against said new people, Warband is old, the amount of people who come is less now than it was two years ago, even if the amount of people who stay is slightly higher).
But like Teeth said, the Valour system is borked, it needs to be tweaked to something different. Valour to both teams OK, Valour averaged with the scores of both teams NOT OK. Valor should be averaged to both teams, otherwise it'd be to easy to get imo if you're a decent player on a shit team, however proximity should be nerfed, and people on the winning team shouldn't be able to get valor.
Archers get really low points for hitting anything at long range. 1/4th of that to the piker next to him would be 0 points most of the time. I don't know if we can or should use score as an incentive to give protection for ranged anyway, but surely it won't work unless you actually get more points than that :wink:
On siege the whole point system should have a proximity bonus to the flag. That way people would actually fight on the flag on maps where it's needed. Maulers will still defend the wall because it's fun and gives kills, so it wouldn't be game breaking anyway.
Right now proximity bonus provides 2/3 points that were accumulated from the initial hit, to friendly players within 3m of the damaged opponent. Should probably change that to 1/4 and provide that same bonus to players within 5m or 6m of an archer/crossbowman that lands a hit on an opponent as well. Rather than having raw damage*.1 we'll probably have to change that to .2 or .3 as to make sure proximity bonus is still proving at least 1 point for decent hits. Finishing blows need to grant additional points on battle, as well as siege when near a flag. Defenders/attacks should probably get points passively for being around a flag, something small like 1 point every 15 seconds for defenders, and 1 point every 5 seconds for attackers, with an additional ~5 points for winning the round while being on the flag(attackers only).
Ignoring valour, what else about score should be adjusted?
I agree that there should be a way of making high value targets actually give you a high value of points back when you kill them.
...most notably by reducing the proximity bonusis this real, a proximity bonus? I thought it was a support kill bonus. Like in f.e. "I have scratched that dude another one kills him, we share the points"
I'd like to see a reward system for teams that win a round by following commanders orders. couldnt say how tho...time of round in proximity to flag, set by commander. If the player has been 90% within the proximity of those flags, additional bonus is granted.
I wish there was a "player" statistics somewhere that I could refer to...NA has had such a thing i believe you have in mind.
while the finetuning you mentioned is ok, if you could read out,(click to show/hide)
+1; even ranged ^^ may then decide to try caping(click to show/hide)
this, perhaps defined as XP modifier(click to show/hide)
EDIT:time of round in proximity to flag, set by commander. If the player has been 90% within the proximity of those flags, additional bonus is granted.
Only problem with that, besides from a troll commander, is that it would encourage people to just sit next to a flag and do nothing all round. Also, once the commander is dead and can't move flags, they will become irrelevant very quickly, but those wanting easy points won't budge. Good idea, just very easily exploitable I think. Really not sure how rewarding good followers could be implemented in a successful way...Perhaps allow commanders to still comand when dead, but his perspective then fixed to the location and point of view of the flag. He wouldnt have bird but infantry perspective. Still be able to move around the flags location and while not being able to smoothly change perspective as in free observer mode or straving as infantry, but bound to the flags every movement.