Okay, sorry. They're not *YOUR* issues. They're *issues in general* according to you. My bad!
That being said, the rest of what I said directly addressed *the issues*. Hoplites are easily killed and countered, and I don't see them stacking scores. One handers are also pretty much universally outscored by str stacking 2handers and polearms. I think the point stacking simply comes down to a ratio of who can survive the most in battle and do decent damage. You're not going to see agi 1handers or even archers doing a ton of damage while surviving for extended periods in most cases.
Facts, dood. Cut out some of the nerd rage, I wrote well thought out responses to your points and instead of getting a reply I got dismissed. Kind of contrary to what you said about proposing a discussion? Or do you only want a discussion where people agree with you?
The "*problem*" are not hoplites, I never said that. I was saying that they are enjoying benefits due to this new scoring system. A lot of known hoplite players on EU are often getting valour and 100+ scores. They are not that "easily countered", because they have tough shields that don't break together with either high agi and thus high shield skill(Gravoth), or high STR, board shield and lots of armour(Sultan Eren). If you ever muster the courage to play on EU(joke
), keep an eye out for those two and watch them impact on outcome of round.
This is all due to the fact that when team play due to slowness is a deciding factor for the outcome of rounds, which spears naturally excel at, hoplites will reap the benefit twofold with their amazing survivability and support capability. A shield, to counter archers(more or less), a long spear, to counter cavalry and disrupt 2h heroes. It is pretty much a cakewalk, if played properly.
Anyway, this thread is not about hoplites or any other class but the point system. I was just including some related thoughts as examples.
Please don't wet your pants if I choose not to discuss with you about things I feel belong in another thread, calling it nerdrage is just projecting your own frustrations on me even more.
Back on-topic please.
Getting the kill means nothing. Dealing lots of damage does.
Yes, I agree somewhat. I am not saying kills should be in any way superior to dealing damage score wise. But I've one hit riders a countless times with a headshot from a thrust and all I got was a lousy 4-5 points. Pretty early in the round too so don't think they were low on health.
However, _killing_ a player means you boot him out for the duration of that round. Regardless if he was on low health, this is very helpful to your team. With this in mind, some tweaks could be made for when you score a kill.
By the way, question to you cmp. Is score based on damage accumulative or arbitrary? As in, does my total damage count in the score or only for every hit dealt on enemies? For example, if I deal 19 dmg first I get 1 score, if I deal 21 next time, do I get another 3 points? Excluding overkill dmg.
Bjord, tell me which useless shielders are score magnets ? Me ? Quatal ? Evo ? When i play on siege, and i play it almost exclusively, 2h heroes who know how to play have usually better score than shielders. For example Lux, Rufio, Kulin, Rantrex (when not leching) all get awesome score thanks to rounding down formula which favor heavy hitting classes (military pick, 2h, poles). I can assure you that without that rounding down (using for example floats instead of integers, or just reduce rounding down in formula by doubling/tripling points awarded) those heavy hitting classes would have relatively less points compared to low-damage weapons.
Well, one shielder from the top of my head, Yanicar. Pretty lousy player, but I regularly see him getting valour while he has 2:9 score. I get that damage is more important, but seriously. If I have 130 points, I'll have killed more than 2 people.
And agreed, 2h are also enjoying the new score system, especially great maulers or any mauler really, thanks to the high dmg output.
