New Multi System will need ASSISTS

[Weewum]

We need that.

[Joker86]

Actually I would just prefer the replacement of the standard gamemode from battle (with the target of killing all enemy players) to something more objective based, and accomplishing those objectives would win the round, not killing the enemies. That way the focus of the game would be moved away from pure killing to something more "team based", like rageball has. Killing still helps, but it's not the ultimative goal. (Next to other benefits such a system brings, like less delayers and horse crossbowmen hunting with infantry and a few more...)

That way a) gameplay could get improved, because people could perhaps start using their brain instead of hunting kills mindlessly, and b) rewarding kills and assists wouldn't lead to the same extend of teamkills and griefing like it would when killing was the objective.

But actually yes, reward assists. If I think about it properly, the fact how underpowered cavalry is on the paper, but how the retarded gameplay of most players makes cav still overpowered, I would suggest that horses are worth 2 or three players. Perhaps the mindless crowd will then realize there is no use in doing anything (especially charging) before the enemy cav is not taken care of. 

[Christo]

Conquest.

[Joker86]

Conquest.

Something like that, but with a higher (uneven) amount of flags, otherwise it would only enforce a big infantry meleecluster and reduce the importance of the other classes. Indeed, infantry could need a little importance buff compared to cavalry or ranged, but that would be too much. Having a few flags, three or five, would make the infantry important as shock troops or "anvil" respectively, but archers and cavalry could still contribute their bit.

[Weewum]

Something like that, but with a higher (uneven) amount of flags, otherwise it would only enforce a big infantry meleecluster and reduce the importance of the other classes. Indeed, infantry could need a little importance buff compared to cavalry or ranged, but that would be too much. Having a few flags, three or five, would make the infantry important as shock troops or "anvil" respectively, but archers and cavalry could still contribute their bit.

It would only make archers less useful, cav woud be able to ride ahead and take flags ahead of infantry.

[Zanze]

You can't just throw out a kill only experience gain because no one would ever retire, and no newbie would ever play again. Have fun killing full plate with a pitchfork because you can't even get enough xp to get str to use your preferred weapon. Just keep that in mind there...

Also, I support Garrison's idea. Having a low, but static multi and then increasing it based on damage done during the round. (For example, passing a certain threshold of damage would give a certain amount of xp bonus. At the same time, team damage will reduce the current counter for damage done.)

This kicks teamwounders and lolidcaboutteammatesirightswingalldaywith10PS in the nuts.

On that note, WTB NA <20 server!

[Taser]

I definitely support a conquest or flag domination mode. It'd be fun plus would be objective based. Course it might be like rageball with people focusing on the objective and the other half killing people like its TDM. I also wonder if it'd be possible to do TDM in crpg. Would be fun.

But conquest or something like that would be a fun game mode to add.

[Joker86]

It would only make archers less useful, cav woud be able to ride ahead and take flags ahead of infantry.

Why would archers be less useful? They can support the attack on a flag or can stand next to it and defend it by already picking the enemy over range.

And cavalry can only take a flag if there is no enemy cavalry nearby, and if they have cover from enemy archers. Otherwise no, they can't.

And it's not only about conquering a flag, you must hold it a certain time. No, I don't think cavalry can decide this on its own.

[Bryggan]

Will the dead benefit, or will weaker characters (and players) have to linger around the good players with their shield up and not take any risks at all?  As a thrower I'd never try face off a charging cav because if I miss or just wound the horse I am so dead (which, by the way, makes it soooo much fun).  Plus I'm gradually getting better at melee, but if every time I try to face a half ass decent player I'm gonna lose out on 3-4 minutes exp and gold I might just run, and never, ever get good at melee, just going for the opportunity kills.

I like the idea of bonuses for ability, but not in exp and gold.  The guys getting all the kills have already mastered the fighting skills, plus probably have all +3 equipment already.  It would be uber cool if they got titles of something like that that doesn't make them even better fighters yet.  Then you wouldn't feel so bad when killed by a duke, but rightly disappointed in yourself if you're killed by a serf.

[Adamar]

I think the xp system should simply be victory based, and the same value for all the winners.

I've suggested this in another thread: everyone would earn some xp and money in the end of the round, but the winning side would earn a lot more depending on how many teammates are still alive. This would be the ultimate motivation for teamplay I think, as people would have a compeling reason to back their teammates.

[Elindor]

86 votes, wow

[Tindel]

Make a gamemode that works like Counterstrike.

Raiders vs Defenders

Raiders try to plant the powderkeg/torch to destroy objective A or B,  defenders try to stop them, or defuse/put out  the fire before it blows.


And talking multiplier, just remove it.
Make exp a flat 2.5X multiplier no matter who wins/looses.  Make the banner balance always put clans on same team, and tadaaaa we might get more teamwork. And no crying about getting steamrolled cause everyone gets same exp.

[Elindor]

bump

[Frell]

I don't know.


I think assist would give spammers more incentive to hit everyone they possibly can, when they aren't actually the ones fighting the enemy until death.

[Vingnir the Wanderer]

Actually I would just prefer the replacement of the standard gamemode from battle (with the target of killing all enemy players) to something more objective based, and accomplishing those objectives would win the round, not killing the enemies. That way the focus of the game would be moved away from pure killing to something more "team based", like rageball has. Killing still helps, but it's not the ultimative goal. (Next to other benefits such a system brings, like less delayers and horse crossbowmen hunting with infantry and a few more...)

That way a) gameplay could get improved, because people could perhaps start using their brain instead of hunting kills mindlessly, and b) rewarding kills and assists wouldn't lead to the same extend of teamkills and griefing like it would when killing was the objective.

But actually yes, reward assists. If I think about it properly, the fact how underpowered cavalry is on the paper, but how the retarded gameplay of most players makes cav still overpowered, I would suggest that horses are worth 2 or three players. Perhaps the mindless crowd will then realize there is no use in doing anything (especially charging) before the enemy cav is not taken care of. 

I would prefer this as an addition of a new game mode, rather than a replacement to the current battle 'mode'.

As far as the assists, I'd just like to see an assist column on the score screen. 

Think about it, people play for KD, because KD is there on the screen.  If we had assists as well on our screen, maybe we'd get more teamplay,  and as some have suggested, if it paid in some way, you bet your ass people would try more teamplay/assists lol

but i'd settle for just SEEING them on the scorecard.