Valour should give you gold instead?

[Phoenix]

I think that if someone gets valour instead of keeping / losing 1 multiplier you just get 750 gold.
If you had a x5 and you helped your team but they are doing really bad you still get 3 x5 ticks to cover for that.
The amount of gold doesnt have to be 750 gold, maybe possibly 500 gold?

Anyways.. Discuss on what you think because I think personally that this would be pretty cool.




**PS: Also ADD ROMAN ARMOR**             

[Black Wind]

I think that if someone gets valour instead of keeping / losing 1 multiplier you just get 750 gold.
If you had a x5 and you helped your team but they are doing really bad you still get 3 x5 ticks to cover for that.
The amount of gold doesnt have to be 750 gold, maybe possibly 500 gold?

Anyways.. Discuss on what you think because I think personally that this would be pretty cool.




**PS: Also ADD ROMAN ARMOR**             

Ok. I disagree, valour should actually be less random though, but allow like 2 players on the losing team to get +1 multi, and keep it. This means they benefit if its the first round and the teams haven't been balanced yet.

I don't like the gold idea, as typically, one would get more than 3 ticks with a sustained multiplier; thus giving potentially more gold to the player who 'earned' valour.


As for Roman armour... This idea is ridiculous, as Romans were wiped out way before the era in which Mount & Blade is placed. By having pre-dated copper/brass (soft metal) armour implemented, that was used by centurions in the Roman phalanx, the armour value should be abhorrent, compared to the plate, mail and more modern plate/mail.

If Roman armour is implemented, it would really.. Really throw-out the realism of cRPG, and make it a little bit gay.

Lastly, if Roman armour IS introduced, the cRPG gear timeframe would increase dramatically, thus, more items should be brought in to fill the gap. (babylonian, persian, war elephants etc.)

[Gisbert_of_Thuringia]

Just keep the valour system as it is now.

It is fine that you (most of the time) get +1 multi or keep your multi when you are one of the last and you were fighting well.

[Vibe]

Don't really like the idea, I think valour is fine as it is.

[Gisbert_of_Thuringia]

And btw there is a thread about changing the valour system.
At the moment it's about 4 threads under this one


Post there if you wanna change something instead of opening a new one

[Jarlek]

Ok. I disagree, valour should actually be less random though, but allow like 2 players on the losing team to get +1 multi, and keep it. This means they benefit if its the first round and the teams haven't been balanced yet.

I don't like the gold idea, as typically, one would get more than 3 ticks with a sustained multiplier; thus giving potentially more gold to the player who 'earned' valour.


As for Roman armour... This idea is ridiculous, as Romans were wiped out way before the era in which Mount & Blade is placed. By having pre-dated copper/brass (soft metal) armour implemented, that was used by centurions in the Roman phalanx, the armour value should be abhorrent, compared to the plate, mail and more modern plate/mail.

If Roman armour is implemented, it would really.. Really throw-out the realism of cRPG, and make it a little bit gay.

Lastly, if Roman armour IS introduced, the cRPG gear timeframe would increase dramatically, thus, more items should be brought in to fill the gap. (babylonian, persian, war elephants etc.)

Roman armour was iron/steel. The earliest Romans (beginning of the Republic) had cloth, then they got chain/scale armour, and then the Lorica Segmenta in the 1st century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_military_personal_equipment#Lorica_segmentata

They really had pretty advanced weapons and armour. Remember that when the Roman Empire collapsed the technology level in Europe decreased and iron/steel production was almost forgotten.

The armour made in 600 AD was usually worse than what the Romans made in 100 AD.

[Black Wind]

Roman armour was iron/steel. The earliest Romans (beginning of the Republic) had cloth, then they got chain/scale armour, and then the Lorica Segmenta in the 1st century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_military_personal_equipment#Lorica_segmentata

They really had pretty advanced weapons and armour. Remember that when the Roman Empire collapsed the technology level in Europe decreased and iron/steel production was almost forgotten.

The armour made in 600 AD was usually worse than what the Romans made in 100 AD.

Yeah.. I looked it up after I posted lol.

[Jarlek]

Yeah.. I looked it up after I posted lol.

I find it really amusing actually. The Roman equipment was basically the same as that which was "invented" in the 12th/13th century, some even by Italians themselves!

History is really strange.

[Black Wind]

I find it really amusing actually. The Roman equipment was basically the same as that which was "invented" in the 12th/13th century, some even by Italians themselves!

History is really strange.

The Romans had sewers. England didn't have them till like.. The industrial revoltion? Hence, why so many poms died of cholera


I wonder what we'd be like today technologically, if Rome didnt get railed by barbarians lol

[Bobthehero]

IIRC they were close to develop steam technology.
And you can say what you want about the roman, they didnt invent arming swords and thus, are boring