Valour System x5

[MURDERTRON]

Score is not a good way to calculate one's contribution to the team. Cav has easy time getting valour, as do melee classes when they move as a group. But archers, xbows and so on rarely get points for their contributions to the team. Same for guys harassing enemy ranged either on foot (ninjas) or as cav (melee/ranged cav) or covering your own ranged from those threats. On siege the score system actually promotes stupid tactics like defending the front walls instead of the flag.

Either the point system has to be changed to better reflect your contribution to the team or extra multis for "best players" should not be a thing. Getting valour in a good team is already many times easier for a mediocre player than it is in the losing team.

Cav only get their valor from damaging opponents personally.  They hardly ever get proximity points.  Not sure how you can say this about cav.

Anyway, I'd like to reiterate that Canuck's idea is pretty good.  It would help eliminate that either I have multi or I quit mentality as well as make it easier for everyone to quit even if they had multi.

[Mr.K.]

Cav only get their valor from damaging opponents personally.  They hardly ever get proximity points.  Not sure how you can say this about cav.

I've played more cav than any other classes and it's easy to get valour as 1H cav. You'll have time to backstab people, fight other cav, bump people (gives proximity points). Best cavs on EU will get valour every second round. Maybe NA is a bit different with lance cav, but I doubt it's much harder there either.

[Gurnisson]

Cav only get their valor from damaging opponents personally.  They hardly ever get proximity points.  Not sure how you can say this about cav.

If you're good cavalry, valour shouldn't be that hard to get. One slash/stab on another cav can give almost 10 points (hitting the horse and the rider)

[CrazyCracka420]

If you're good anything valor isn't hard to get, not limited to cavalry. 

I like the idea, I think that multi cap should just be removed entirely.  I don't mind going back to x1 when we lose...makes you not want to lose that much more.

[Grumbs]

I think a cap is necessary to avoid abusing the system, and to have a hard limit on the xp/gold you generate per round

Maybe after x5 you get some modifier to your repair chance. So x6 would be 0.9x repair chance. Or you lose less multi on round loss

Valour works ok imo, team players and main damage dealers get rewards, which encourages teamplay and gives a reward to players that are valuable to their team

They could make valour reward ranged players more but then you will get more campers and anti team players

[ROHYPNOL]

I think a cap is necessary to avoid abusing the system, and to have a hard limit on the xp/gold you generate per round

Maybe after x5 you get some modifier to your repair chance. So x6 would be 0.9x repair chance. Or you lose less multi on round loss

Valour works ok imo, team players and main damage dealers get rewards, which encourages teamplay and gives a reward to players that are valuable to their team

They could make valour reward ranged players more but then you will get more campers and anti team players

It is time for a nice change of pace in crpg, mainly to get more people involved. With a lot of nerfs and fun taken out of the game already, so many people have quit because of it. Some say there should not be

a cap at all, which would be nice, but I was suggesting it to be increased with valour in which I would like to see it either way. Currently getting valour with an x5 gives you no extra benefit for doing well. I

would like to see a change in this.

[Teeth]

The only reason these problems exist is because the valour system has turned into utter bullshit. It used to be losing team only and those who got valour would maintain their multi instead of losing it. No idea why valour is now awarded to the winning team and +1's the multi, it's dumb and unnecessary. Even worse, the losing team star players often do not get valour because they get outscored by the winning team, entirely defeating the purpose of the system. The purpose being, rewarding those players that did a good job but lost because of a bad team.

Example for siege: Your team just barely gets a foothold in the defenders castle, you are the only one who gets anywhere. Your 80 score however, which is easily twice the average of your team, is eclipsed by the 100+ scores of multiple attackers who camped a ladder the entire round. Same can happen on battle, where one team's melee rapetrain completely obliterates your team and you got 25 points which is easily twice the average of your team, but they all got 40-50 points with proximity from the rapetrain.

Valour calculation does not look only at your team, it looks at the averages of both teams and rewards the players that have twice that average, which is completely dumb when teams are very skewed. The team that loses gets fucked over twice, because apart from getting wrecked, their star players don't get valour because uneven point distribution between the teams. Therefore only the losing team should get a valour calculation so the valour actually does what it is supposed to do. Save the multi of the people that deserved it.

Your suggestion is terrible even though I would benefit extremely from it. It encourages valour whoring like crazy and it is already bad enough. Doing away with the entire multi system would be the best course anyway.

[SugarHoe]

Pretty sure the word valor was arbitrarily chosen to represent the function. That is to say, ranged certainly deserve the same rights to a multiplier that melee/cav have.

I disagree, ranged is low risk/low reward atm. You sit back and shoot into groups of people, get a few kills maybe and that's pretty much it if they're "playing their role" if they get into melee that isn't good, they aren't supposed to, infantry and cav have a much higher chance of dying due to ranged, infantry, cav etc etc. they do most the work which gets them the points.

[Butan]

Valour calculation does not look only at your team, it looks at the averages of both teams and rewards the players that have twice that average

Easy fix : keep valour for winner/loser team, but calculate the average from both teams SEPARATELY 


I too think that the XP system could have a much bigger plateau, or even none.
The Biggest Strategus battles gives 40-80k XP each ticks... If valour + multiplicator system gets a buff, it will only decrease the incredible difference between cRPG gamemodes and strategus.


visitors can't see pics , please register or login



cRPG is at a point where we can and could forget about "balance" when we speak of character customization possibilities. We are so few left, give the few more fun.
Those who wants to play tincan/plated charger all day can if they want.

- increased XP
- decreased upkeep
- free respec/unlooming
- adding extra gameplay (nudges, commanders, all good things)
- overhauling of strat

Cant hurt 

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

cRPG is at a point where we can and could forget about "balance" when we speak of character customization possibilities. We are so few left, give the few more fun.
Those who wants to play tincan/plated charger all day can if they want.

- increased XP
- decreased upkeep
- free respec/unlooming
- adding extra gameplay (nudges, commanders, all good things)
- overhauling of strat

Cant hurt 

The fuck are you talking about? There are plenty of people left, and free respecs/unlooming while keeping the leveling system and looming system would just shit all over everyone who aren't level 34-36 with exactly 9 MWs.

[Butan]

The fuck are you talking about? There are plenty of people left.

You've been here for some years, how can you honestly say that Zlisch 



So when you accept that we have a population that barely keeps 2 EU and 2 NA servers alive, you will think about why the hell should someone keep a lvl 35 build and 9 MW's that he doesnt want to use anymore.

(click to show/hide)

And thats accepting that there is more than two dozen people that fit that description.

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

You've been here for some years, how can you honestly say that Zlisch 



So when you accept that we have a population that barely keeps 2 EU and 2 NA servers alive, you will think about why the hell should someone keep a lvl 35 build and 9 MW's that he doesnt want to use anymore.

(click to show/hide)

And thats accepting that there is more than two dozen people that fit that description.

I'v been here for some years, at the prime of when I started we'd have 120 people on EU_1, 20 people on EU_4, and 90 or so people on EU_2 for about 5 hours a day. We got about half the people we used to have, the main population groups we've lost (I don't know about siege) were the EU_4 community (cause devs killed our servers, fuck even I play in NA and siege instead of EU_1 when I can) and GK anyhow (often had 20-30 people on at once, 1-2 of which still play), the EU_4 loss doesn't affect EU_1, and I doubt most of us miss GK. Saying that we barely keep the siege servers alive is complete bullshit, since the respawn time changes there have been more siege players than battle players when battle has around 20-30 players, it's also insanely hypocritical that you complain about dying servers when you play a delaying horsearcher and often along with other horseranged kill EU servers 2-3 hours before they usually die singlehandedly. Also that level 35 with 9 MWs can respec and trade his looms, that also avoids shitting on anyone who isn't level 35 with 9 MWs and making him feel at a big disadvantage.

The single biggest issue with battle servers is that the ranged amount is almost always the same, whether there are 20 or 60 or 120 players on there are gonna almost be the same amount of ranged. And siege is doing better than ever.

[Molly]

The only reason these problems exist is because the valour system has turned into utter bullshit. It used to be losing team only and those who got valour would maintain their multi instead of losing it. No idea why valour is now awarded to the winning team and +1's the multi, it's dumb and unnecessary. Even worse, the losing team star players often do not get valour because they get outscored by the winning team, entirely defeating the purpose of the system. The purpose being, rewarding those players that did a good job but lost because of a bad team.

Example for siege: Your team just barely gets a foothold in the defenders castle, you are the only one who gets anywhere. Your 80 score however, which is easily twice the average of your team, is eclipsed by the 100+ scores of multiple attackers who camped a ladder the entire round. Same can happen on battle, where one team's melee rapetrain completely obliterates your team and you got 25 points which is easily twice the average of your team, but they all got 40-50 points with proximity from the rapetrain.

Valour calculation does not look only at your team, it looks at the averages of both teams and rewards the players that have twice that average, which is completely dumb when teams are very skewed. The team that loses gets fucked over twice, because apart from getting wrecked, their star players don't get valour because uneven point distribution between the teams. Therefore only the losing team should get a valour calculation so the valour actually does what it is supposed to do. Save the multi of the people that deserved it.

Your suggestion is terrible even though I would benefit extremely from it. It encourages valour whoring like crazy and it is already bad enough. Doing away with the entire multi system would be the best course anyway.

This, this and this so many fucking times. Valour was probably the most stupid idea they ever came up with. And it's not just stupid, it's even completely retarded to give Valour to the winning team. What for? We all know that it's piss easy to do good in a good team. But doing exceptional in a bad team is way harder and actually deserves recognition... Suggestion sucks...

[Butan]

at the prime of when I started we'd have 120 people on EU_1, 20 people on EU_4, and 90 or so people on EU_2 for about 5 hours a day.

Even though you forget EU_5, Pecores, Nordmenn, melee server and other "special-private" servers, and that they were all completely filled in prime time (you even HAD to go to smaller servers since there was no open slots), you basically provide arguments against yourself.

The rest of your post provide absolutely 0 insight on the matter at hand, shitposting at its best better done in PM's.

(click to show/hide)

I retired my HA to Melee cav a month ago, keep your spy ring updated nubcake.

[Zanze]

I think valor is fine for both teams, and even to incorporate Rohy's idea of an increased multi. Without a doubt keep separate calculations(I thought they already did this?) so that winning team and losing team both get a chance at valor. For the winning team, just an extra multiplier is fine for the round, losing it after if you don't get valor again. Tiny boost, nothing ground breaking but a nice pat on the back for your efforts. For the losing team, I would not mind decreasing the requirements for valor slightly to have it open for more people and of course to keep multi's going. This encourages most people to fight better now that they have a better, discourages clan-wide rage quits at multi-loss, and ultimately gives both teams a chance to increase their rewards based off the effort they put in. (Also, distinction between classes is a big no no.)