The cRPG paradox (lots of bold unsupported claims, pls correct me if i fail)

[Riddaren]

Change or remove valour and the score-system

Go back to the old score system or just remove it all together?

[Kutluhan]

calm down tyrannosaurus still here.


visitors can't see pics , please register or login

resim gönder

[Joseph Porta]

 

[Sniger]

To get valour you need to obtain greater than 2.8x the average score gained for each player on your team.

I think thats broken. Players using low damage weapons compeating against players with high damage weapons. Player will pick high damage weapon. Are you phasing out the low damage weapons? 

This is part of The Paradox® i mentioned; Due to the valour/score system, alot (too many) choose high damage weapon, polearm or two-hand. The rest will go range. People complain about amount of range. There is high amount of range because there is high amount of non-shielders. And there is high amount of cav because... High amount of range...... Evil loop®

[Sniger]

From now on i will only try to get valour. I do no longer care about winning.

[San]

The lower damage weapons make it easier to kill archers/agi builds. Ranged and cav are the easiest sources of valour.

[Tydeus]

I think thats broken. Players using low damage weapons compeating against players with high damage weapons. Player will pick high damage weapon.

That's precisely why I changed it from raw damage, to effective. Because high damage cut generates higher raw damage values, but often ends in the same or less effective damage than pierce/blunt. The current system rewards whatever it is that allows an individual to do the most effective damage in a single round, which is often not your high base damage weapons.

[Sniger]

which is often not your high base damage weapons.

well... it is :p

edit: lol, are you playing EU?

[Kafein]

I think people like Sniger are the reason things like Lysenkoism exist.

(click to show/hide)

now that I think about it that analogy is actually more relevant than it sounds

[Dark_Blade]

does anyone really wants to get a valour just to see his nickname displayed at the end of round huh? o_O

[Smoothrich]

the real cRPG paradox: shit players think they are good, so when they do bad (which they always do) they think everyone else is cheating, tryharding, or game mechanics are imbalanced, then for some reason decide to post about it, assuming somehow that they have profound insight on game design (instead of realizing they are just shit)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

[Oberyn]

I think people like Sniger are the reason things like Lysenkoism exist.

(click to show/hide)

now that I think about it that analogy is actually more relevant than it sounds

Dat confirmation bias. Start with a conclusion, pick and choose evidence that confirms it and ignore evidence which contradicts it. Magically your theory will be "proven" correct.

[Sniger]

the real cRPG paradox: shit players think they are good, so when they do bad (which they always do) they think everyone else is cheating, tryharding, or game mechanics are imbalanced, then for some reason decide to post about it, assuming somehow that they have profound insight on game design (instead of realizing they are just shit)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

80% of this community

[Grumbs]

From now on i will only try to get valour. I do no longer care about winning.

Why not both? Win the round and get valour for +2 multi

Pretty counter productive to just go for valour anyway (unless you play HA ). Winning the round guarantees that you get more gold/xp, and if your team is losing the round you could get outnumbered and killed before you can do enough damage.

Lower damage weapons will still get valour because they have trade offs that increase the chance that you score a hit btw

[Sniger]

The final calculated output damage is pretty much twice the amount of 1h, but 1h speed is far from twice the speed of polearms and/or two-hands, actually, polearms and two-hands are faster