Valour

[korppis]

Valour is mostly harmless though, so there's no point really in removing it from siege.

Except that it discourages doing objectives and encourages spawnraping. The latter is very common on EU2 these days.

[Soulreaver]

make valour as a personal achievement,the average score lets say will based on last ~10h of playing and each time you makin 3x your average score you get valour, each time you retire/respec the avg score is nullifying
so even new players will be able to get

[Teeth]

The valour system works flawlessly in my experience, to the point that I can take a look at the scoreboard and guesstimate if I will get valour and mostly be correct. Seperated averages for teams is a godsend. Since I play siege for the frantic melee fights, I often disregard objectives completely and go wherever most of the fighting is without really bothering to think about objectives. Valour enables me to do this as my focus on fighting gets me valour quite reliably, even if my team loses quickly, so I wouldn't say valour doesn't hurt siege.

[Molly]

My old request still stands, even today with valour working better:

Valour ONLY for the loosing team.

[Tydeus]

Except that it discourages doing objectives and encourages spawnraping. The latter is very common on EU2 these days.

Indeed, "mostly" harmless was what I said.

Valour ONLY for the loosing team.

That still won't change anything. As far as negative impacts go, you could argue that it would have less of a negative impact for your team (where losing team only and the current system would both have greater negative impacts), were valour restricted to the winning team. This is because you would no longer be able to use valour as a failsafe. If all you wanted to do is pretend siege was TDM, you would have to do so, knowing that when your team lost, you'd have no chance of sustaining your multiplier.

[_GTX_]

Except that it discourages doing objectives and encourages spawnraping. The latter is very common on EU2 these days.

Oh comeon, have a little fun. Spawnraping is quite a good way of taking the attention of a lot of players, which leaves less to attack your castle. This especially weakens the usually strong first wave.

[Molly]

I was saying that in general.

Valour for the winning team is nonsense. In Battle, on Siege, on DTV, everywhere.

[Tydeus]

I was saying that in general.

Valour for the winning team is nonsense. In Battle, on Siege, on DTV, everywhere.

Only because you want valour to be something other than what it's currently intended to be. I realize what I'm about to say might seem a bit hard to understand, but please try to utilize your imagination as best you can.

Many people want one of two things when they talk about a new xp system, they either want to return to the old, proximity/kill based xp system, or they want a cross between the passive(multiplier) system, and the old system. Think about how one achieves valour currently, which is based solely on scores. Score is accumulated by damaging others(with a kill bonus amounting to 1/3 to 1/2 the total player's worth), or being within the appropriate proximity of such. In a sense, when you think about it like this, you can actually consider valour, if both teams are able to get it, as being a cross between the mutli system, and the old xp system. Of course, it's not an even compromise, it certainly relies heavier on the multi system than the old xp system. Nevertheless, the comparison can (and should) be made.

From this point of view one could easily argue in favor of making valour easier to achieve, but valour is a bit too effective at increasing one's average xp/gold amount to do this, currently.

[Tojo]

The valour system works flawlessly in my experience, to the point that I can take a look at the scoreboard and guesstimate if I will get valour and mostly be correct. Seperated averages for teams is a godsend. Since I play siege for the frantic melee fights, I often disregard objectives completely and go wherever most of the fighting is without really bothering to think about objectives. Valour enables me to do this as my focus on fighting gets me valour quite reliably, even if my team loses quickly, so I wouldn't say valour doesn't hurt siege.

the difference is the amount of players in siege, comparing NA2 and EU2. Most of NA is scared of siege or regards it as a "noob" place. I don't think it helps that siege is hard to keep a multi on unless its an easy defense or attack castle.

[Kampfkarotte]

People say that valour is bugged atm, but I'm not sure if it's a bug or feature. This "bug" would last for several weeks now without any fixes..
I regular see people raging that they don't get valour (including me) and i have lost over 70k now, cause I can only afford playing cav with valour.
No matter if it's a bug or not I would be very glad if that got fixed soon.

[Joseph Porta]

I fixed a bug with valour about a week ago that should solve the issue of people not getting valour with 40 points when the rest of their team gets very little. That being said, this won't change the OPs concerns. The problem is the siege gamemode itself (or alternatively, you could look at it as the valour requirements being the issue. Really it's the same thing, just two different perspectives though.) Because people can respawn, it's much more forgiving. Players are easily capable of getting 20 or 30 points in a singe round, whereas in battle, the average score per team tends to fall somewhere between 5 and 10. This just makes it that much more difficult to get valour.

Few people getting valour on Siege is nothing new, the month or two where people were able to get it 3-5 players as a time on siege, was an irregularity that wasn't exactly intended.

I've thought about changing the valour requirements for siege, but I concluded that for the most part, due to not having score rewards for objectives (which were previously deemed to be a poor idea), valour conflicts with core mechanics that make siege what it is. To be honest, I'd rather remove valour if we're not to grant score for objectives (which is hard to do.) Valour is mostly harmless though, so there's no point really in removing it from siege.

As i've said before; valour does not belong on siege. on siege it causes players to care less about actually defending or attacking the objective, which is what siege is about.

[Macbeth3]

I'm not 100% sure, but appareantly they said there's a bug where the team on the right side, doesn't get valour even if they "should" have been given it.

At least, currently, this is still so in battle. Not sure about siege.

[STR_aD_Sargon_eqv]

If you didn't get valour, it simply means you were not the only one who had an awesome round and helped your team a lot.
Today valour works better than anytime before, IMO. No need to change anything.

i thought it doesnt work correct for the right or left team (dont remember which one exactly)

[Macropus]

i thought it doesnt work correct for the right or left team (dont remember which one exactly)

I posted that before the valour got bugged (or before I learned that it was bugged).

[Royans]

Can make 10 kills a round / 80 points ~~ , if im in second team, im fucked. ( eu 1 )