Valour System x5

[CrazyCracka420]

http://forum.melee.org/suggestions-corner/calculator-valour-separately-for-both-teams/new/#new

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

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.

I don't recall what EU_5 used to have, know it was pretty much always empty when I joined though. When Pecores, Nordmen, or the melee only server ha people it was always just the EU4s on another server, and while you had to go to smaller servers that doesn't change the fact that the EU4 community had  barely shrinked before the server died, at which point most of us stopped playing, siege is alive and lives well into the  night, and besides GK (who everyone hated) the EU_1 playerbase isn't that smaller than before. You're overreacting and being retarded.

[Butan]

The EU4 community had  barely shrinked - the EU_1 playerbase isn't that smaller than before.

I wish there was a "player" statistics somewhere that I could refer to... Until then I can only tell you you are blind 
Anyway the "less players, so give us more fun" argument isnt the only reason why you would want to have more freedom to custom your characters (xp/upkeep/looms/respec/retire/etc..), I think it would add more incentive to play, and the valour system should be one of the many thing that keep the playerbase happy.


But like Teeth said, the Valour system is borked, it needs to be tweaked to something different. Valour to both teams OK, Valour averaged with the scores of both teams NOT OK.

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

I wish there was a "player" statistics somewhere that I could refer to... Until then I can only tell you you are blind  Yeah I'm blind, EU_1 wasn't on 59 players 11am this morning (note that with EU_1 I always state that one major group left, GK, who usually had 20-30 people on when the servers were full, but besides that, not much change) either (ofc there is always the possibility of you thinking I've played longer than I have, but otherwise, you're wrong.
Anyway the "less players, so give us more fun" argument isnt the only reason why you would want to have more freedom to custom your characters (xp/upkeep/looms/respec/retire/etc..), I think it would add more incentive to play, and the valour system should be one of the many thing that keep the playerbase happy. If it was up to me looms and xp and levels and gold would be removed, so don't claim I want to limit customization or that I love griding, your idea is simply a massive fuck you to anyone who bought training lessons, sold their looms for training lessons, retired or respeced at level 34-36, it'll also raise the average level and MWs used at once amount lowering the incentive for new people to stay even further (and yes, staying as a new player was probably harder back in old cRPG, but back then I'm also guessing there were generally more new people, who had new people fun together, and who could stand a chance against said new people, Warband is old, the amount of people who come is less now than it was two years ago, even if the amount of people who stay is slightly higher).


But like Teeth said, the Valour system is borked, it needs to be tweaked to something different. Valour to both teams OK, Valour averaged with the scores of both teams NOT OK. Valor should be averaged to both teams, otherwise it'd be to easy to get imo if you're a decent player on a shit team, however proximity should be nerfed, and people on the winning team shouldn't be able to get valor.

[Elindor]

I think the point of valour is supposed to be that you still get rewarded as a decent/good player if you end up stuck on a shit team...
So therefore it would make more sense separated by teams, not calculated from everyone on the server.

I could be wrong.

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

If you're on a team with 5 200 pings against a team with 3 200 pings and 3 40 pings (I've had this happen before several times) it shouldn't be guaranteed that I get valor if I hit one of their 200 pings, valor should reward doing great on a shit team, not doing average while everyone else on your team does shit.

[pine]

the problem is that its not just the valour system that's messed up its the whole points system as well. I think that valour should be calculated seperately for both teams AND should be calculated purely by damage done and a small proximity bonus.

[San]

 ^yes. Proximity should be any damage dealer including ranged. If that can't be done, just remove it. (except for enemy tws). Whatever value your enemy has for banner balance or some other value system should also affect points acquired.

[Tydeus]

Right now proximity bonus provides 2/3 points that were accumulated from the initial hit, to friendly players within 3m of the damaged opponent. Should probably change that to 1/4 and provide that same bonus to players within 5m or 6m of an archer/crossbowman that lands a hit on an opponent as well. Rather than having raw damage*.1 we'll probably have to change that to .2 or .3 as to make sure proximity bonus is still proving at least 1 point for decent hits. Finishing blows need to grant additional points on battle, as well as siege when near a flag. Defenders/attacks should probably get points passively for being around a flag, something small like 1 point every 15 seconds for defenders, and 1 point every 5 seconds for attackers, with an additional ~5 points for winning the round while being on the flag(attackers only).

Ignoring valour, what else about score should be adjusted?

[Huscarlton_Banks]

Getting more points by purposely using a weak weapon seems on the strange side, but without valour points are useless anyway except for the epeenz.

[Mr.K.]

Archers get really low points for hitting anything at long range. 1/4th of that to the piker next to him would be 0 points most of the time. I don't know if we can or should use score as an incentive to give protection for ranged anyway, but surely it won't work unless you actually get more points than that

On siege the whole point system should have a proximity bonus to the flag. That way people would actually fight on the flag on maps where it's needed. Maulers will still defend the wall because it's fun and gives kills, so it wouldn't be game breaking anyway.

[Jona]

Archers get really low points for hitting anything at long range. 1/4th of that to the piker next to him would be 0 points most of the time. I don't know if we can or should use score as an incentive to give protection for ranged anyway, but surely it won't work unless you actually get more points than that

On siege the whole point system should have a proximity bonus to the flag. That way people would actually fight on the flag on maps where it's needed. Maulers will still defend the wall because it's fun and gives kills, so it wouldn't be game breaking anyway.

Personally I think that just standing within the flag-cap region should give you X points per second as an attacker. This way when you are the only guy on your team who makes it to the flag, and has to fend off 3 defenders all alone, you can still get enough points for valor even though you aren't on the ladder-camping team. Also this provides an incentive to go for the ninja cap. As of now, if you team is doing shit, a ninja cap is a risky move... you can go for it, and pray that you succeed and win the round for your team, or you can hop into the fray and just valor whore, which is usually pretty easy.

[Phew]

Right now proximity bonus provides 2/3 points that were accumulated from the initial hit, to friendly players within 3m of the damaged opponent. Should probably change that to 1/4 and provide that same bonus to players within 5m or 6m of an archer/crossbowman that lands a hit on an opponent as well. Rather than having raw damage*.1 we'll probably have to change that to .2 or .3 as to make sure proximity bonus is still proving at least 1 point for decent hits. Finishing blows need to grant additional points on battle, as well as siege when near a flag. Defenders/attacks should probably get points passively for being around a flag, something small like 1 point every 15 seconds for defenders, and 1 point every 5 seconds for attackers, with an additional ~5 points for winning the round while being on the flag(attackers only).

Ignoring valour, what else about score should be adjusted?

Good start, but the whole multiplier+valour system needs to just go away, and instead give XP/gold proportional to points earned, with a large point bonus to the winning team each round (you could still award point bonuses for consecutive wins to emulate the multiplier system). With the tweaks above, a peasant could still earn plenty of points and contribute to the team just by defending the flag/protecting archer allies/etc.

Also, points should be a function of the level+gear value of the target. Right now, you get about the same points for one-shotting a peasant as beating a fully loomed lvl 35 hero. Alternatively, you could track the average points earned per round for each player, and assign their "point value" based on this metric; either approach would accomplish the same thing of rewarding players for damaging/killing high value targets.

[Jarold]

I agree that there should be a way of making high value targets actually give you a high value of points back when you kill them.

[Jona]

I agree that there should be a way of making high value targets actually give you a high value of points back when you kill them.

Since every high level player isn't necessarily better than a common level 30 player, you can't base points off of someone's level. I would guess the best way to go about doing this is that the amount of points you get per kill (or per hit, I guess) is some percent of what your victim's current score is. Of course during the earlier rounds when everyone has low score, this isn't as effective, so perhaps once someone gets over 50 score or something like that, this could go into effect. Really just whenever you would start getting more score than the current system.