Proximity based scoring should not be used.

[Zerran]

I actually find I do better on the scoreboard now with an xbow than I did before. Ranged hit a LOT of targets, but often only kill a small percentage of them because they can't keep hitting the same target like melee can.

Though, if it would be possible without lagging up the servers, which I doubt, it would be nice if everyone who hit a target in the last ~2 seconds would get points for assists.

[San]

I think 'proximity' should be based on those making points, including archers (and those who are covering them) and cav. Kills should also count a bit more to help those who like to flank alone or in small groups. The ones actually killing will get the most points, while defensive support players get some points until they can act on it and stop cav/infantry.

[Micah]

Yes, it's not perfect, but there is simply no perfect solution. This at least allows peasants to be somewhat helpful and feel rewarded by trying to help the old ones.

There is no perfect solution ?

Well one question then , how "good" is the best solution we can get (one of the optimal solutions ) ? How "good" will we be able to judge a player , how much WORTH a player has ?  Allowing a peasant to feel somewhat helpful and rewarded IS a kind intention but it is by far no major issue, or is it ?
Can we get to a grade of "good" to justify basing the XP/Gold gain on it ? Even if its a Hybrid style of Multiplyer+Scorebased solution which only attenuates the error the score formular makes : i believe that it would be still by far to unjust to base upon ! It can only include : Damage dealt and Proximity right now ... best case it includes prevented damage. How far can us get this ?.

Another question : If we had a perfect (just) formular judging like a veteran military professor. What would we have ? Some number for each player to be curious about ... because he has no clue about how he got it, he would have to be this veteran miitary professor  too understand it. Because : noone here is a tactical ace and the teamplay sux balls mostly because it is not supported much by the game ! It would ofcourse be just to distribute XP/Gold related to this WORTH of a player using the shapley distribution function for cooperative games. But its also wouldnt make sense because this is no military tactical game, its a cooperative PvP hack'n'Slay with about none tactical support, features and tools and least of us are soldiers too. As well as the least part of the community is interrested in discussing tactical envolvement of the game (i can tell i made serveral threads about it ).
You want tactics ? Support tactics !
You want roleplay ? Support roleplay!
You want to prevent leeching ? Prevent leeching !
You want E-Peen ? Gtfo =P

And another question: Whats about the Fun? Whats with variety of ways to play the game ? The Ninjas, Assassins, Farmers, Noblemen, Barbars, Ladies, Masseurs of Ladies. Its the extremes who define the variety not the usual 90% Knights. They too add to the worth of the game, they are worth what they are worth ... i mean , they are funny and different.

And the last question: What does it change in the end ? Does anyone really believe that this score number will change the intentions with whome people are playing the game or the way they WANT to play the game ? Even more : Should it change the way people are playing the game  ? Should it penalize and reward playstyles and players in this very imperfect , uncapable, unjust way it is right now and will propably stay ? Do we want to be forced to play according to a formula ?

Why would we want that ? Why would we need that ?

I do not know . Please tell me  =(

[Pandemona]

Let's admit that, kill whoring was better than score whoring, why should i headshot enemy archers when i can get more points by wounding cavalry's horses ?

[Riddaren]

(click to show/hide)

There is no perfect solution ?

Well one question then , how "good" is the best solution we can get (one of the optimal solutions ) ? How "good" will we be able to judge a player , how much WORTH this player is ?  Allowing a peasant to feel somewhat helpful and rewarded IS a kind intention but it is by far no major issue, or is it ?
Can we get to a greade of "good" to justify basing the XP/Gold gain on it ? Even if its a Hybrid style of Multiplyer+Scorebased solution which only attenuates the error the score formular makes : i believe that it would be still by far to unjust to base upon ! It can only include : Damage dealt and Proximity right now ... best case it includes prevented damage. How far can us get this ?.

Another question : If we had a perfect (just) formular judging like a veteran military professor. What would we have ? Some number for each player to be curious about ... because he has no clue about how he got it, he would have to be this veteran miitary professor  too understand it. Because : noone here is a tactical ace and the teamplay sux balls because it is not supported much by the game ! It would ofcourse be just to distribute XP/Gold related to this WORTH of a player using the shapley distribution function for cooperative games. But its also wouldnt make sense because this is no military tactical game, its a cooperative PvP hack'n'Slay with about none tactical support, features and tools. As well as the least part of the community is interrested in discussing tactical envolvement of the game (i can tell i made serveral threads about it ).
You want tactics ? Support tactics !
You want roleplay ? Support roleplay!
You want to prevent leeching ? Prevent leeching !
You want E-Peen ? Support E-peen !

And another question: Whats about the Fun? Whats with variety of ways to play the game ? The Ninjas, Assassins, Farmers, Noblemen, Barbars, Ladies, Masseurs of Ladies. Its the extremes who define the variety not the usual 90% Knights.

And the last question: What does it change in the end ? Does anyone really believe that this score number will change the intentions with whome people are playing the game an the way they WANT to play the game ? Even more : Should it change the way people are playing the game  ? Should it penalize and reward playstyles and players in this very imperfect , uncapable, unjust way it is right now and will propably stay ?

Why would we want that ? Why would we need that ?

I do not know . Please tell me  =(

You got some good points. I agree.

Anyway, about the perfect solution:
It is when the one who contributed most to his team gets the highest score.
Because if we should focus on something it's got to be the teamplay.

With this new score system, we have already fixed a lot of problems we had previously.
I believe and hope it will be better and better; that is rewarding actual team contribution.

[Riddaren]

Let's admit that, kill whoring was better than score whoring, why should i headshot enemy archers when i can get more points by wounding horses ?

I do agree, killing an archer should give you more points than wounding a horse.
However, it shouldn't matter at all if it's a headshot or anything else.

It won't help your team more if you killed the archer with a headshot than an arrow to his knee.
Score should be based on team contribution. Not fancy ways of killing someone. IMO.

[Pandemona]

I do agree, killing an archer should give you more points than wounding a horse.
However, it shouldn't matter at all if it's a headshot or anything else.

It won't help your team more if you killed the archer with a headshot than an arrow to his knee.
Score should be based on team contribution. Not fancy ways of killing someone. IMO.

If you kill someone with headshot, they won't have chance to kill other players in team while you reload your xbow again, so i think it does support.

[Leshma]

Headshots should be x3 and headshits x2 regular hit points, on top of damage they do. Buff for shielders and precise archers.

[Pandemona]

Also, as ranged i cba to fight near of the enemy or our melee players, since i'm ''ranged''. But i want to have high scores, so what i'm going to do ? With this score system i'm not supporting my team well if you look at the scoreboard, because i'm so far to my team.

[Corsair831]

Also, as ranged i cba to fight near of the enemy or our melee players, since i'm ''ranged''. But i want to have high scores, so what i'm going to do ? With this score system i'm not supporting my team well if you look at the scoreboard, because i'm so far to my team.

shoot horses

[Pandemona]

shoot horses

It's hard to find horses in siege

[Micah]

Also, as ranged i cba to fight near of the enemy or our melee players, since i'm ''ranged''. But i want to have high scores, so what i'm going to do ? With this score system i'm not supporting my team well if you look at the scoreboard, because i'm so far to my team.

one could invent class based proximity :
for archers/xbow = 30meters
cav = 10 meters
melee footmen = 3 meters

[Latrinenkobold]

Headshots should be x3 and headshits x2 regular hit points, on top of damage they do. Buff for shielders and precise archers.

Head shits???
Also i agree with micah

[Son Of Odin]

It's hard to find horses in siege

Is it too hard to hit people climbing ladders in siege with masterwork arbalest?

one could invent class based proximity :
for archers/xbow = 30meters
cav = 10 meters
melee footmen = 3 meters

I like that idea, but I think cav can manage without the proximity bonus. Would make sense though, because cav presence is one helluva big factor even if they don't actually engage the enemy.

[Pandemona]

Is it too hard to hit people climbing ladders in siege with masterwork arbalest?

For me (talking about strategus) killing enemy archers is more useful, since they're more dangerous for me and most of my team.