PvP Points
Issue #212
new
To make PvP and getting a medal in the discipline more challenging, I believe PvP points should only go to the winner of a PvP-battle.
This way nobility and/or having lots of gold makes less of a difference for getting those points. What does come more forward is the quality of creating a PvP army and the tactics of PvP-ing. Someone with 50 wins and 3 losses in PvP should have more points than someone with 30 wins and 40 losses.
Comments (2)
-
-
On the other hand losing 10 PVPs on a row on peasant armies, even by attacking 3 ranks above, is a bit of an exploit. I agree with OP, PVP points should be given only for winning.
- Log in to comment
I don't agree, I'll give you the example of Ghandara Axeman and Berserkers ( most likely they have been nerfed since I played them) but they would give a Pikes/Champs armies like 3-5 deads per PVP but a lot of times would lose that battle. I consider deads/injures count more important than winning.