Idea: score-/ranking list

[korppis]

I don't know about ranking, especially if using only K/D which doesn't tell a whole lot.

I'd much rather see more detailed stats --> killed horses (with a rider, not rogue horses), some sort of damage stats both to enemy and to friendlies, teamkills and so on. Generally I'd like to see dealt damage in scores instead of K/D. Just think about archers that weaken 20 ppl but might not get the killing blow.

[Molly]

I don't know about ranking, especially if using only K/D which doesn't tell a whole lot.

I'd much rather see more detailed stats --> killed horses (with a rider, not rogue horses), some sort of damage stats both to enemy and to friendlies, teamkills and so on. Generally I'd like to see dealt damage in scores instead of K/D. Just think about archers that weaken 20 ppl but might not get the killing blow.

This.
I always kill at least 1 horse per round with my xbow. Most of the time I even manage to kill 2 or 3 horses cuz I try to focus on it. Therefore my K/D is shit. Besides that I am a lousy trader so I don't have many looms.
So, although I kill an average of 2 horses per round I would be considered as "useless grunt" cuz I actually try to be useful for the team instead of kill-whoring?

[deathbringer521]

Yea, once every 5 maps that happens...

Besides, who killed the other 40 people before that?

1/2 of the team did, the other half fucked around and still has 0 kills

[deathbringer521]

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

bows are inaccurate, unless the archer sacrifices lots of basic stats to boost it. even then they are still pretty weak. try moving sporadically, instead of running in a strait line, and calling OP when they can aim.

[Molly]

1/2 of the team did, the other half fucked around and still has 0 kills

That's plain bullshit but it seems pointless explaining it to you. So I won't even bother...

[dodnet]

I don't know about ranking, especially if using only K/D which doesn't tell a whole lot.

I'd much rather see more detailed stats --> killed horses (with a rider, not rogue horses), some sort of damage stats both to enemy and to friendlies, teamkills and so on. Generally I'd like to see dealt damage in scores instead of K/D. Just think about archers that weaken 20 ppl but might not get the killing blow.

This. I play as spear support role and mainly focus on cav, which gets me less kills and more horse kills which are counted nowhere.

[Teeth]

Wrong!
Actually the team with the most sign of teamplay wins the round. Just having Chase in the team doesn't guarantee a win if everyone is just spreading out and doing their own thing.
And a fucked up idea and attitude of/to the game like the above spoils a lot of fun that could be had on top of the normal crpg gameplay...

Thought you were better than this Teeth but seems you're just another elitist snob after all. Guess that's the Byzantium way then, eh?

You are completely misunderstanding me.

When I say that skilled players make their team win, I define skill as being able to teamplay to get your team to victory. You immediately read skilled players as those with a high k/d for some reason yourself, which is not what I mean at all. The main goal of every player in a round should be to make his team win.

Those teamplayers that you talk about in this example, make their team win therefore -> skilled players
An archer that spend the entire round shooting a high valued player's horse and succeeds, though getting zero kills he is helping his team -> skilled player
Merc_Phazh trying to get his team to do tactics and succesfully winning rounds -> skilled player
A piker spends his rounds watching for horses and gets 0 kills but kills 5 horses ->

A 18/24 kuyak hero, who spends his round on the flanks, picks off a peasants who have zero impact on his team winning and gets top score on a map -> not a skilled player

That is why a win loss ratio would be most representative of individual player skill. It shows what effect you as an individual have on the success of your team. All those above mentioned skilled players would not get the credit they deserve on the regular scoreboard or whatever ranking list the OP suggests.

(click to show/hide)

This.
I always kill at least 1 horse per round with my xbow. Most of the time I even manage to kill 2 or 3 horses cuz I try to focus on it. Therefore my K/D is shit. Besides that I am a lousy trader so I don't have many looms.
So, although I kill an average of 2 horses per round I would be considered as "useless grunt" cuz I actually try to be useful for the team instead of kill-whoring?

Exactly what I mean, your efforts wouldn't be recognized by a ranking strongly based on k/d, but would be recognized by a win/loss ratio. Don't worry Molly were on the same page here.

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

Besides, who killed the other 40 people before that?

Chase?

[Molly]

You are completely misunderstanding me.

When I say that skilled players make their team win, I define skill as being able to teamplay to get your team to victory. You immediately read skilled players as those with a high k/d for some reason yourself, which is not what I mean at all. The main goal of every player in a round should be to make his team win.

Those teamplayers that you talk about in this example, make their team win therefore -> skilled players
An archer that spend the entire round shooting a high valued player's horse and succeeds, though getting zero kills he is helping his team -> skilled player
Merc_Phazh trying to get his team to do tactics and succesfully winning rounds -> skilled player
A piker spends his rounds watching for horses and gets 0 kills but kills 5 horses ->

A 18/24 kuyak hero, who spends his round on the flanks, picks off a peasants who have zero impact on his team winning and gets top score on a map -> not a skilled player

That is why a win loss ratio would be most representative of individual player skill. It shows what effect you as an individual have on the success of your team. All those above mentioned skilled players would not get the credit they deserve on the regular scoreboard or whatever ranking list the OP suggests.
Exactly what I mean, your efforts wouldn't be recognized by a ranking strongly based on k/d, but would be recognized by a win/loss ratio. Don't worry Molly were on the same page here.

Indeed I misunderstood you and apologize for the harsh words.

Chase?

He's good but not Superman.