Increase score for killing ranged.

[Life]

I think increasing the score given for killing ranged would help balance the game and bring down the current influx of ranged characters. This includes score given for ranged VS ranged.

The ones I see with the higher scores / getting valor are the ones who attack the infantry. Ranged opponents generally do not yield much score.
 
How would this affect general gameplay?
+ Archers would be a higher target for the "valor farmers"
+ # of archers would decrease
+ More players competing for valor

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

+ Reason to put 1 of 2 points into shield to charge archers

(click to show/hide)

+ More points for killing enemy ranged
+/- More targets getting closer to you for you to shoot at.
- More enemies targeting you

(click to show/hide)

+ Heavier horses would be essentially "buffed" due to their ability to take a lot of arrows.

How would this be done?
I'm no developer and have no experience with programming and such. But if the devs can add score to the mod, I'm sure they can tweak the numbers.
"archers" would be determined by anyone with a bow+arrows / xbow+bolts in their equipment loadout*

Or is that not possible with the engine?

[Leshma]

Or is that not possible with the engine?

Most likely this.

[Hirlok]

Should be possible, but why? The other way round it would make sense: point system for archers (not xbows and throwers) is totally fucked. Fix dat. Nao.

Oh, and:
- More targets getting closer to you for you to shoot at.
fixed dat for you. I prefer them to keep their distance...

[Tydeus]

At the moment archers are undervalued in score and melee overvalued(thanks to proximity bonus). Score should reward players for what they contribute to their team effort,  so I don't see why any random archer should be worth more than say, a melee guy with a 15:1 K:D for the map. Score needs changed, but not like this. The reason ranged doesn't yield as much score, is because score takes your raw damage, not final damage and raw damage is figured just before armor is brought in.

Edit: Also, this won't decrease ranged, this might convince ranged to shoot at each other more often, but I highly doubt it. Most ranged don't shoot at cav and yet cav provides a lot of easy points.

[San]

Scoring needs to be fixed from the bottom up. How it is calculated from damage, more points for high performance targets, and the way proximity works (imo there should be proximity for damage dealers rather than takers) all need to be tweaked.

[Tzar]

Your idea is good, but i honestly dont see how it would reduce ranged population.
I voted no, tbh i think the valour system works just fine now.

1. It rewards people who gets into the fight an are in danger.
2. Risk vs Reward concept works with the current system.
3. It rewards people not going solo hero...

[Grumbs]

If ranged did cut damage or had less armour penetration they might shoot ranged more. If ranged had to use light armour

If the purpose is to have fewer ranged though shooting ranged should not be the best option for killing enemy ranged

[Molly]

How can someone seriously state that valour is fine when it's 80% of players in the winning team who are getting it. That alone is already a broken concept. Valour should only be for the losing team alone to reward players who did exceptional well considering the lousy team mates.

It's every frustrating when I actually get a good round, being 2nd on the scoreboard with 40 points in the loosing team while some 1h cav my old friend (hard!) in the winning team got 80 points from bump slashing half of my team...

Valour in it's current state is bullshit - mildly put.

[kinngrimm]

Should be possible, but why? The other way round it would make sense: point system for archers (not xbows and throwers) is totally fucked. Fix dat. Nao.

Oh, and:
- More targets getting closer to you for you to shoot at.
fixed dat for you. I prefer them to keep their distance...

While i like the OPs idear, i have to agree here with Hirlok, the point system for ranged sucks balls.
So their efforts should be represented better within the scoreboard, but perhaps the increased chance for valour if killing lots of "ranged"(not only archers) can be realised at the same time? It has not allways to be the one thing or the other, it sometimes could be both.

...(imo there should be proximity for damage dealers rather than takers)...

I agree asfar as i understand it but would you please elaborate that point a bit more?

...Valour should only be for the losing team alone to reward players who did exceptional well considering the lousy team mates.
...

this

[Prpavi]

Sure, implement this and I have guaranteed valor every round on my HA

[San]

I agree asfar as i understand it but would you please elaborate that point a bit more?

Proximity for ranged players who deal damage and melee who cover them would be the largest difference.

[Tydeus]

I actually find myself leaning towards simplifying the whole score system entirely so that the only thing that grants score, is damage dealt. This is because nearly every class has the same damage potential(Not necessarily per hit, but throughout the whole round). Any exception to this generally seems to coincide with changes in loadout costs. The other alternative to this, is to reward players for as many different things as possible(much more difficult, although still a possibility).

[kinngrimm]

I actually find myself leaning towards simplifying the whole score system entirely so that the only thing that grants score, is damage dealt.....

Keep it simple and decrease score by th/tk damage.
People want a good score then they also need to pay attention.
Therefor i would go sofar to susbtract 2x the points in damage dealt by th/tk, then the points added for damaging opponents. High ping players may have a disadvantage here i am aware, but we dont live in a perfect world.

[Miwiw]

If ranged did cut damage or had less armour penetration they might shoot ranged more. If ranged had to use light armour

Most ranged uses light armor that's why I as archer do not shoot other ranged primaly because I prefer to use bodkin arrows and using 2-3 arrows on an archers is a waste while I could use 1-2 on an armored infantry to kill him. Most archers are below 40 body armor, I'm using myself a loomed short heraldic surcoat over mail.

Anyway, just because a player is an archer, doesnt make him more dangerous than any other good infantry.

[Adamar]

The score system just needs to stop rewarding ppl for being close to enemy, because melee players already do that naturaly, and rushing shouldn't be encouraged in any way. With melee being rewarded sligthly less it's ballanced with the other class.