XP based on damage

[CrazyCracka420]

This is just a very "rough draft" idea.  What if they lowered the XP for the multiplier, but made it so that the damage you deal is where you get the majority of your XP? 

You would need some fancy algorithm however that would basically divide damage dealt by your strength, wpf, the power of the weapon used, etc.  I think this would encourage teamwork more and people who don't necessarily get a lot of credit for their K:D on the score board (more support type classes) would still be encouraged and rewarded for actually helping the team?

I'm sure there's lots of issues that would need to be addressed and overcome to make this work, but I think it would be a cool thing to consider.

This could all also apply to the gold too (or not). 

[Zerran]

No, some classes are simply not there for damage. This doesn't benefit someone who decides to, say, guard a group of archers from cav all round. Or someone who shieldwalls the 2H and polearms on the team to protect them from ranged. Current system benefits the people who help the team the most, regardless of their exact job. Anything based on damage or kills only rewards aggressive players who charge out and start slaughtering people.

[CrazyCracka420]

No, some classes are simply not there for damage. This doesn't benefit someone who decides to, say, guard a group of archers from cav all round. Or someone who shieldwalls the 2H and polearms on the team to protect them from ranged. Current system benefits the people who help the team the most, regardless of their exact job. Anything based on damage or kills only rewards aggressive players who charge out and start slaughtering people.

That's why I say there should be an algorithm so it's not based on straight damage.  But I agree that it would probably hurt the shield wallers (who aren't ever stabbing someone even if it's a weak thrust), or the pikemen who are only deterring cav, but never stabbing them.   Well it sounded good in my head

[Christo]

Indeed, a system like what you propose, would screw over everyone who wants to be a valuable asset to his team, and not simply a kill hungry e-peen hunter.

[Teeth]

I would support this system. Make people work for their xp. Just also add big penalties for teamhitting and teamkilling so the kill hungryness gets limited.

It might not be perfect, but its better than this shit we have now.

[CrazyCracka420]

Indeed, a system like what you propose, would screw over everyone who wants to be a valuable asset to his team, and not simply a kill hungry e-peen hunter.

Well in my mind (originally) that was why I proposed this system.  So that it would reward people who get an arrow into an enemy but don't get the kill, or who are hoplites and deal damage to a lot of people, but don't necessarily get a lot of kills.

That's why I say they would need an algorithm to make it equal (so that high str builds who would obviously deal more damage, would still be rewarded proportionally).

[Christo]

Instead of damage, it should be hits, or something similar.

To count assists, then reward those.
No need for fancy damage formula.

 

[Teeth]

That's why I say they would need an algorithm to make it equal (so that high str builds who would obviously deal more damage, would still be rewarded proportionally).

I don't see why this is necessarry. STR builds dish out more damage per hit, does that mean they dish out more damage per second?

I think damage is pretty close to battle effectiveness. Every action you do is to deal damage or to defend yourself, to allow you to continue dealing damage. There is no healing and no extensive building, every player is a damage dealer. His primary goal is dealing damage.

Although everyone is always screaming 'What about the support classes?', I don't really think there are support classes. Sure a shielder can cover his teammates once in a while, but when the enemy gets close he attacks and deals damage. Pikers are support classes? Give me a break, sure they work better when fighting alongside teammates but they deal shittons of damage. I don't think I have ever dealt more damage per round than with an ashwood pike.

If STR builds deal more damage, they should be rewarded accordingly, it shouldn't be scaled. If they deal more damage, they are more useful for the team, they should get better rewards. Still, I don't think STR builds do all that more damage/round.

(Yes I do understand that this system would be far from perfect, just spewing out blatant optimism to counter the immediate no sayers who haven't given it any thought at all.)

[Christo]

I can agree by the way, the multiplier/tick system works fine yes, but it's..

How to describe..

It's a bit too bland, and dull.

Works quite well, that's no doubt, I just dislike how people strive for ticks and multipliers, kills the feeling a bit.

[Wraist]

If STR builds deal more damage, they should be rewarded accordingly, it shouldn't be scaled. If they deal more damage, they are more useful for the team, they should get better rewards.

The logic's not obvious, please elaborate.

[Joker86]

What about those who decide for actions that allow OTHERS to deal more damage, and lowering your own?

For example yes, a pikeman who is supporting in melee can deal a LOT of damage, but how about pikemen who decide to protect the flank of cavalry? It can be very well that they fend off half a dozen enemy cavalry knights without stabbing a single time in the round.

Would you say they are less valuable than those guys fighting in the central melee? Sure, at the end it's them who kill all the enemies, which is the ultimative condition to win a battle, but if there was no pikeman covering their flanks, cavalry could have ridden them down, and they would not have killed anyone.