Score system

[San]

I think getting a hit on good players no matter the equipment should get you more points. I was a little disappointed when a few of my low damage hits garnered no points, though.


From an undisclosed location:

Bumping this, but is there a way to take into account the current performance of the target and reward more/less points accordingly? Optimally, it would be whatever the game uses as a balance mechanism (KD, level, etc.). Or if that's not possible, the current score of your opponent? I find searching out "easier" targets too rewarding when trying to get valour instead of taking the more challenging path against tougher opponents.

At least some ideas are out there to make it even better. Killing heroes of any class should be worth the reward.

[Tzar]

I dunno why they changed it in the first place 

[Sniger]

its really hard for a 1hander/shielder to get valour since he is effectively compeating against everyone (incl. his own team mates) where majority is high damage dealers like polearms, 2h, cav and some range.

i dont get points for banging several enemies shields to pieces... the 2mins i spend fighting 1 or 2 shielders will yield max 3-5 points because very high chance that my opponents will be killed by my team.

if i was in charge, we wouldnt have any score board to glance at and if we had one, it would be based on the following:

1 kill = 2 points
1 assist = 1 point
Flag-capture = 2 points
TH = -10
TK = -100

[Tydeus]

So basically what I have gotten so far from this thread, is a whole bunch of requests and ideas for things that are already in place. So it's good to know the system is pretty damn close to where it should be, as stated in the first half of the OP.

Just a few things for you guys to keep in mind:

The scoreboard score isn't a player's real score, it's not even the score used for valour. Scoreboard score takes the real score value and divides that number by 15. So when you say "I only got 3 points" well, you're actually talking about a much larger and wider range of points, and due to rounding, you could have been a single damage point away from "4" points.

Until I can get score per round saved on the website, score offset won't be perfect for addressing this situation(although it's still not bad, since I believe for most people, performance fluctuates on a daily/weekly basis). If it's round 2 or 3, and the guy you're fighting had an unlucky first few rounds, then his Score_Offset is going to be lower than it should, which will cause you to get fewer points than what is really deserved.

A player's score_offset is found by his round score gained to the server's average score gained per player ratio, with a lower and upper bound cap of 3:4 and 3:2 respectably.

Assists are already implemented, and we still have proximity xp as well(although it's been reduced to 1/3 score). So if there are still issues with the system, I think it's simply a matter of adjusting values further, not really adding features.

[wayyyyyne]

To be fair the old system we had wasn't flawless but it was pretty darn close. Nowadays it just feels off how some people get valour.

[Tydeus]

You get valour by dealing a lot of damage, by focusing those who do well, or both. Never before has spawn camping or picking off peasants been worth so little. Killing those that aren't performing well will grant as low as 75% what it would have in the past. I'm considering lowering the value further, but the wider the range in score_offset penalties/bonuses, the larger the resulting score disparity will be.

[woody]

Maybe get points according to damage dealt with a bonus for heavier armoured opponents something like - damage done times constant multiplied by body armour rating divided by 50 gives points.

Ie you would get twice as many points for damage done to someone with 75 armour rather than 37.

[Riddaren]

Well, points received should be based on the level of the enemy, like I first suggested when suggesting this score system

[Tydeus]

Well, points received should be based on the level of the enemy, like I first suggested when suggesting this score system

Can't say I really agree with that. I don't like the idea of artificially raising/lowering someone's battlefield importance. Why should I receive more points for killing the long time cRPG 2h heavy kuyak player whose averaging 100 damage a round(aside from him having a bitch build  ), than the guy that has been playing M&B for 6 years and just started cRPG, yet is averaging 200 damage a round as a 1h shielder? There's just no reason to inflate player worth like that. Performance is what matters. If the guy in plate isn't doing well, he shouldn't be worth a lot. Furthermore, higher weight results in increased vulnerability such that the player becomes easier to hit. There's already a small bonus for landing a hit and not killing someone, I don't think there needs to be anything extra just because your opponent has a lot of armor, and you low damage.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying higher armor doesn't provide tangible benefits. What I am saying though, is that any of those tangible benefits, will already be reflected in the player accumulating higher scores, which will automatically cause them to be worth more points to kill.

[Sniger]

racism

[jtobiasm]

Valour is too easy to get nowadays.