Valour tweak suggestion.

[Teeth]

I am not sure what the formula for getting valour is, but I find it silly that your chances of valour depend not only on the performance of your team, but also on the performance on the other team. I will provide some examples to illustrate my point.

Example 1:
It is a horribly unbalanced round of battle with the enemy team barely only a handful of players while ganking your team. Most of your team didn't even reach 10 points in the round, but you managed to hold out fairly well and got 30 points, making you have a way above average score. The valorous top gankers on the other team got 40 or even 50 points with most of their team having a good 20 points due to proximity score. Which makes the top gankers on their team receive valour instead of you. There is no doubt in that the top scores of the other team did well, but you can't really compare the circumstances in which they got 40-50 points and you got 30. Considering the circumstances I'd say you were as valorous if not more than they were.

Example 2:
Oh Siege, valour on Siege, ain't that something. You are playing a shitty ladder map and are attacking. You charge up the ladder valiantly again and again and you manage to do incredibly well. Accruing 120 points in the round. You are well on top of your team and even though you didn't manage to win no one can say you didn't try. Then looking at the other side of the scoreboard, 4 people with over 200 points. All of them high damage 2h who spent their round camping the top of a ladder, with loads of proximity points being awarded to a lot of people. Of course they were very useful for their team, but you can't really compare the circumstances in which they got so much more points than you.

My suggestion being that valour should only depend on the scores of your team, because they got those scores in comparable circumstances. This goes especially for siege, where as an attacker you often have no chance at all to gain valour. It goes for battle as well though, being on a winning team makes getting points a lot easier. Comparing apples and oranges makes the valour system unfair. I don't know why the system works like that in the first place, but it is not too late to change it.

[Moncho]

If they have not changed, I believe that the performance of both teams was taken into account, since you need twice the average score of the whole server, which takes into account the performance of the other team as well.

Reducing the proximity bonus would be nice, but there should be a bit, otherwise you would discourage being in the "big angry mob", and would encourage even more going rambo and using less teamwork.


Edit: Ok, nevermind, missed a couple of crucial words.
It would be nice, but it should still be harder to get valour in the losing team than in the attacking team, since after all you still lost.

[Teeth]

I disagree, I think valour should be given to anyone who scores way above average compared to his team, and his team only. Rarely you alone can carry your team enough to make them win. I am quite sure valour was created specifically to save your multi in those times you do a great job but the rest of your team just derps. It used to be only available to the losing team, remember. Now with valour available to both teams and also dependent on both teams, it is actually easier to get valour as the winning team, which completely defeats the purpose in my opinion.

Now you could argue that people will just try to get as many points for valour instead of actually making their team win. Nobody thought this an issue though when the system got first introduced. Also, because point gain depends on damage dealt and because there is also proximity score, I think the goals of getting valour and winning overlap enough to justify a more losing team friendly system.

[Molly]

My suggestion:

Finally remove valour completely. One of the most stupid ideas ever implemented into crpg.

[Moncho]

My suggestion:

Finally remove valour completely. One of the most stupid ideas ever implemented into crpg.

And multi.

I disagree, I think valour should be given to anyone who scores way above average compared to his team, and his team only. Rarely you alone can carry your team enough to make them win. I am quite sure valour was created specifically to save your multi in those times you do a great job but the rest of your team just derps. It used to be only available to the losing team, remember. Now with valour available to both teams and also dependent on both teams, it is actually easier to get valour as the winning team, which completely defeats the purpose in my opinion.

Now you could argue that people will just try to get as many points for valour instead of actually making their team win. Nobody thought this an issue though when the system got first introduced. Also, because point gain depends on damage dealt and because there is also proximity score, I think the goals of getting valour and winning overlap enough to justify a more losing team friendly system.

When it was first implemented, people thought that it had to do with dying last while putting up a good fight, which led to people hiding and only coming out at the end to try and be a hero and get valour. And when they changed it to the point system, there was also quite a bit of complaints (Have you ever seen a new feature appear without complaints?). I have never liked it, even if I have been benefited from it plenty of times.

Valour started as a "I lost but I keep my multi thing", which I do not like at all. Valour has changed a lot ever since. From losing only 1 multi, it went to actually adding an extra one even if you lose. It is a reward for fighting a lot, and surviving, which are important things but not the most, especially for siege (I have seen people jump off the walls as defenders, stay for a long time attacking attackers at their spawn and getting valour while the rest of the attacker team takes the flag and captures the castle, which is not helping at all imo).

I prefer it as a reward for the best people in the server, not those in the team. So I guess it is more that we see it as something different.
If you do well, you will still get valour, if you do not get valour you simply did not do well enough in conjunction with your team imo.

[Lennu]

I thought that the other team's players had no effect on your team's valor limit.  You know, valor counted separately for each team like you suggested there, Teeth.

+ one more suggestion.
Make valor effect only the exp, not gold. Right now there are way too many 2handers just spamming in their tincan armor, hardly knowing what manual blocking is, still getting valor thanks to their high tier equipment.
So give the exp and gold their own different multipliers. Exp would be effected by the valor(still reward the best players), and the chances to get valor could actually be increased a bit. And gold would completely depend on your wins/losses. This way everyone would be forced to stick closer to the same boundaries the upkeep sets. Less item based, more skill/teamwork based.

[Ronin]

Nicely thought. I was always seeing the injustice among classes, and completely forgot about team/opposite team performances can affect valor. As an infantry you are, you have a better chance of observing this factor of getting valor.

As my observations can be only like this; I forgot getting a mount for one round, I got valor.

What I'm trying to say is; there are so many broken things about the valor system.

[Tzar]

I love the Valour we have now

What is wrong with it  :

You just have to play aggressive to gain it  It rewards people who got huge balls.

Stay behind your team mates an observe you dont gain shit rightfully so 

[Ronin]

I love the Valour we have now

What is wrong with it  :

You just have to play aggressive to gain it  It rewards people who got huge balls.

Stay behind your team mates an observe you dont gain shit rightfully so 

That excludes anything but infantry.

[Haboe]

Valour per team is cool.

Give additional points for a kill (and for a headshot ofc)

(click to show/hide)

Because wounding an enemy is good, but making a kill contributes more to the team (dead players won't hurt your allies, wounded still can)

Also gives ranged a shot at valour

[rufio]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Turboflex]

valour is getting double your team's average score.

Score system could maybe use a bit of tweaking tho, add bonus points for kills.

[oprah_winfrey]

valour is getting double your team's average score.

Score system could maybe use a bit of tweaking tho, add bonus points for kills.

That seems pretty difficult. Especially with proximity points.

[Utrakil]

Valour per team is cool.

Give additional points for a kill (and for a headshot ofc)

(click to show/hide)

Because wounding an enemy is good, but making a kill contributes more to the team (dead players won't hurt your allies, wounded still can)

Also gives ranged a shot at valour

 I don't like the idea of bonus points for kills. Or do you really think you do a better work than me if i hit the enemy 5 times to weaken him until you come and give him the final blow?
Points schould go by hits and not by the amout of damage. Because this goes only to the favor of of high damaging 2H.

[Turboflex]

That seems pretty difficult. Especially with proximity points.

getting that is difficult?

You generally get it if you pull off 30+ points per round, sometimes 25 if your team is awful.