killing points

[Adagio]

Hi,

I'm sure that has already been asked before, but for some reasons searching "killing points" in the forum gives 0 answers. Very weird.

So the question: how are determined the PK you get as attacker, when you win? I'm asking because I remember clearly at the beginning when I was attacking inactives and killing their 10 lancers and 5 berserks, I always got 40 or 50 points. Now since a couple of days I don't get anything. Even when the defender has much higher forces. For example to times I have cleaned a city with 400 lancers, and got *nothing*, not a single point. Is that normal?

Adagio

[Adagio]

Sorry, I spoke too fast. What happens is actually very strange: my kill score as attacker was raised by a subsantial amount (not sure exactly how much, something like 2000 pts) after my last attack. But my total didn't *move at all*. So currerently I have 9130 killing points, and 9208 points total!! Which is ridiculous since I almost have an academy. Any hint? Is that (one more) problem of synchronization?

[DanielJ]

Takes time to synchronize could be one problem. Wait some days, doesnt it work, submit a ticket to playmesh.

[Mr. O]

Kill score i believe is a total of the Attack Score + Defender score, which means it goes up if you are attacked or if you attack.

I also believe that only unit versus unit attacks contribute to this score, meaning farming does not, or if it does, its quite limited.

Also - having an academy does not contribute at all to these scores.

[Adagio]

Thanks both for answering, but actually you hadn't really understood my problem: I was thinking that the "Total points" was, hum, the total of all points, i.e. building points + killing points. Hence I couldn't understand why my points (total I mean) didn't raise after I won a battle, and even less how it was possible to have 9208 points *including* 9130 killing points!

I must say I feel a little bit silly, although not that much. The label "Total points" is really confusing, it should be better named "Building points".

Additionally, I think that the (real) total number of points, building+killing, should be used for ranking. Come on, isn't Valor a game of combat? I know you can switch to the ranking by killing score, but who ever does that? Also there are many places where only the building points are displayed, e.g. on the Map and in the guild ranking.

Adagio

[Mr. O]

You raise some excellent, forgive the term, point there.
The points for the cities are set that way, because knowing the level of the buildings lets you know how difficult a target that specific city is.
A city with 10,000 points is less likely to have a large farm (high population, and a high level wall (high defense).
A city with 43,999 has the maximum level of both and presents a harder target. This is irrespective of the players kill score.

Your point is interesting however, in that the global rankings doesn't automatically show the kill / def score of a player, but only shows the building score. Your point is an excellent one, in that the game is combat based and as such should reflect that in the points. A hybrid would definitely change the rankings to show a potentially better player rather than just the only with the most stuff.
I think the argument that the player with the higher building point score is by default going to be the player with a high (not always highest) kill score, is a good one. As they dont capture enemy cities via the market place. It does mean that the player with the highest building point score is going to be the hardest mathematical target, but not always the hardest tactician to beat.

But i do think your suggestion is an excellent one.

[Adagio]

> The points for the cities are set that way, because knowing
> the level of the buildings lets you know how difficult a target
> that specific city is.

I absolutely agree! But precisely, the fact that cities do have their own points is one more reason to use another system for the players. Currently, you have twice the same information in the map (at the beginning of the game, at least). Plus, that would solve the weird problem of synchronization between both values.

> A hybrid would definitely change the rankings to show a potentially
> better player rather than just the only with the most stuff.

We agree, even though it was not really my idea. I'm not sure there is any reason why a player having a high killing score would be "better" - even less if it's defensive killing. I think that in the detailed report, all informations are valuable: the building points says something about the user's overall power, the killing points say something about its style.

> I think the argument that the player with the higher building point score
> is by default going to be the player with a high (not always highest) kill
> score, is a good one

On the top of the pyramid, certainly it won't really change things. But you know, we are not all in the top ten! Personally, I find my little pleasure in seeing my rank raising every day, and I would like to be rewarded a little bit for taking risks, compared to a guy just hiding in its town. The default ranking should just be there for fun, then you would have the technical rankings, building, and killing of the 2 types.

[Stark Bledfast]

The points for the cities are set that way, because knowing the level of the buildings lets you know how difficult a target that specific city is.

Kind of, but not really. A level 30 City hall, farm, Ironmine, etc do nothing to defend a city. Really, only Walls have any defensive property, and even there a 43,999 point city can be taken with 1,144 lancers and 4 scholars if it has no units to defend itself with.

I would like to see armies factor into points. Perhaps make the building representation (town, village, keep, castle, mega-castle) indicate the building level, but the total points factor in the army size which can flux.

This would also open up some strategery... if you build a 40k city and your city has 40,100 points, then everyone will know it is defenseless. You have the big icon (which represents at least a 40k point worth), which leaves you at most 100 points for units. Easy pickings.

Yet if you stop building at 39,993 points then you still have the regular castle icon. No one knows if you have 10k of buildings and 29k of units, or 39k of buildings and no units, etc. It's a guessing game.

And those with the mega castle icon and points around 80k? Yeah, don't mess with that city unless you have a big, big army.

[Valorgamer]

Interesting idea stark, I like it 

[Adagio]

> if you build a 40k city and your city has 40,100 points,
> then everyone will know it is defenseless.

Precisely BledFast, this is rather a weakness in your system, which would then reduce considerably the role of scouts.

However the idea to factor the army power in the city points is interesting. Very logical, I would say. On the opposite, this would rather raise the role of scouts. Does it need to be raised? I don't know, I'm not advanced enough in the game. But this would have tactical consequences, e.g. it would no more be possible to build discreetly a massive attack army in a small town.