Score should effect minimum multiplier

[Admerius]

Minimum multiplier you can have = 1+Score/100(rounded down)
Maximum of x5 should still apply, maybe x3 or x4 should be max so there's still a point to win the round.

The biggest problem I can think off right now is high score players intentionally losing to delay map change,
that's easily changed by making every map Best of 5 instead of first to three wins etc.

San's suggestion(currently the top rated one)

How about this?

Level 1-20

1 + score / (2*level)

Level 21-30

1 + score / (40 + (level-20) * 5)

Level 31+
1 + score / (100 + (level-30) * 10)

Truncate decimals, negative score is treated as 0.

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Edit1: San's formula added
Edit2: Added spreadsheet

[Admerius]

Minimum multiplier you can have = 1+Score/100(rounded down)

urgh, forgot to spell it out fully... 2nd try now:

Minimum multiplier you can have = 1 + score/100 rounded down to the closests integer(whole number like 1,2,3,4 etc. )

That means
0-99 score= minimum multiplier you can have is 1
100-199= minimum 2
etc.

Imagine that some xp hungry person manages to get 500 score and there fore has x5 as minimum multiplier, if that person is in a position to end the map by winning (3-0) or by doing his best to lose the map (2-3), that's THREE extra rounds of x5 if he sabotages for his team. That's why I proposed a cap at x4 or x3 as the maximum lowest multipler you are guaranteed to get from score.

Negative score gshould probably still give x1, or else there would be, oops accidental th/fall off wall = log out and back in again.

Edit1:
Math rules:
1+score/100=1+(score/100) -> 1 then add score divided by 100
(1+score)/100)-> 1+score then divive all that by 100
Darn it, now I can't pretend to be stupid any longer... at least in math.

[Spartacus]

IMO it is not the right way to change the system.
I would simply help high lvl players but not low lvl.
But we need a change that helps low lvl.

[Admerius]

IMO it is not the right way to change the system.
I would be simply help high lvl players but not low lvl.
But we need a change that helps low lvl.

Yes, we need something that helps new players.
I suppose that is what you mean by low level.

That can be tied to let say you only need 25 or 50 points to increase minimum multi
if the following conditions are met:
Must be generation 1
Must be lvl 30 or below
Must be main character

[San]

How about this?

Level 1-20

1 + score / (2*level)

Level 21-30

1 + score / (40 + (level-20) * 5)

Level 31+
1 + score / (100 + (level-30) * 10)

Truncate decimals, negative score is treated as 0.

[Admerius]

Sound really good, I'll add this to first post with credits of course.

If any other formula gets more popular feedback I'll replace it with that one, just so you know.
 

[Spartacus]

How about this?

Level 1-20

1 + score / (2*level)

Level 21-30

1 + score / (40 + (level-20) * 5)

Level 31+
1 + score / (100 + (level-30) * 10)

Truncate decimals, negative score is treated as 0.

This sounds ok but i doubt that it will be easy to be implemented...

[San]

Branching statements aren't hard.

Where to put it and how it affects all cases is, though. Let's say you're at a x1 and get enough points for a x5, but your team wins. You'll have to go through that formula each time and check it against any multiplier change. A solution against that would be to just have it not affect multiplier, but provide a secondary bonus to EXP/gold.

[Admerius]

Added spreadsheet to first post to demonstrate how it will work if San's formula is be added.

[Eddy]

So i would need to get 150 points to get x2?
Well atleast that gonna motivate me to retire my character.

[Admerius]

So i would need to get 150 points to get x2?
Well atleast that gonna motivate me to retire my character.

This is meant to be on top of "Win gain one multi/lose reset to x1"

With 150 pts you would reset to x2 instead of x1 on loss, with (2*150)300 points would reset to x3 instead of x1.

[Bulzur]

This is meant to be on top of "Win gain one multi/lose reset to x1"

With 150 pts you would reset to x2 instead of x1 on loss, with (2*150)300 points would reset to x3 instead of x1.

Nop, impossible. 300 points is just impossible.

As for the 150 pts leaving you with a x2 instead of a x1, i just don't like it either.
Example : 6 rounds were done, last one was a loss, you have  151 points and so you get x2. What do you do next round (and last round) : suicide, still get x2.

The "thing" called valor already helps people who actually contribute each round to keep a good multi, there's no need for a secondary feature to also make sure they never reach x1. We don't need to increase the gap between older and newer player again.

[San]

300 is probably possible on siege I think. In battle, I think only the best players can get them if they're really lucky; 150 is a score your average good player won't get unless they were particularly dominant.

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

A guy with 28 kills barely makes the cut. I think it's a decent safety net for someone who did a lot of work for his team only to suffer an unlucky break near the end. But yeah, high levels don't really need it.

[Admerius]

Nop, impossible. 300 points is just impossible.

As for the 150 pts leaving you with a x2 instead of a x1, i just don't like it either.
Example : 6 rounds were done, last one was a loss, you have  151 points and so you get x2. What do you do next round (and last round) : suicide, still get x2.

The "thing" called valor already helps people who actually contribute each round to keep a good multi, there's no need for a secondary feature to also make sure they never reach x1. We don't need to increase the gap between older and newer player again.

300 pts being impossible Isn't that a good thing? That way only low levels can get higher minimum multi?
now that you mention it I get the feeling the original formula is too kind to lvl 20+, The point isn't to make every high skilled player switch between x4 and x5 the last rounds on siege servers.

Thanks a lot for this, you're right it's not impossible enough...

About that suiciding for x2, yes it will introduce this problem, but that player has earned that x2. If he/she decides to leech that x2 then that's breaking the rules. Of course it is nearly impossible to enforce, but it still doesn't change the fact that the player in question has a poor attitude towards cRPG(most likely life in general) and misses out on much of what it has to offer.
Suiciding as a deceptive way of leeching is imo worse than ordinary leeching.

Rewarding old player?
The point is that this affects low level characters the most and rewards points(crude estimation of contribution). This way it offers a safety net for players that make a good effort to contribute regardless of level.

It rewards Skill(in getting points) mainly at low levels , it has nothing what so ever to do with "account creation date" or rewarding high levels.

Of course it will make grinding for looms easier for players that are good at getting points, but it adds a "secondary objective" instead of  all or nothing win/lose, for new clan less players vs 10+ bannerstacks. With this change they can feel that scoring points helps their progression and gold coffers.

The main strength with this suggestion is that it will not affect the x5 streaks(often bannerstacked old players), it will act as a kind of "mini-valour" for players that gets many points.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Phew]

I'd rather see the flawed multiplier/valor system go away entirely and be replaced with xp/gold rewards for contributing to the team (with proximity bonuses for being near objectives in siege). But if that's not going to happen, the proposed idea is better than nothing.

Does the offset calculation include your own score, or just your opponent's? Because if I'm level 36 and full looms and kill a guy with a high score, it doesn't mean I deserve a particularly high bonus; that's just par. But if I'm a lvl 20 peasant with no looms and kill that lvl 36 guy, it should be an absurdly big reward.

EDIT-Why does it have to be based on the current map? Can't you just track average score over the last x rounds and use that? Using the current map 1. gives Battle even more xp/gold bonuses over siege and 2. encourages all kinds of exploits listed above to keep it on the current map as long as possible.