Valour System x5

[ROHYPNOL]

When you have an x5 and you get valour it should increase your multiplier to x6 and so on. It should never have a cap, for this will make even people with an x5 still care about getting the next multi.

This would also make it a point to try and get better at the game so that you could get more experience for higher multipliers.

[Life]

no limit on how many multipliers you could get would be great. also, upgrade NA 1 server. it sux

[Heibai]

And what if his team doesn't lose and he got valour from time to time? x10? x20?

I still care about my x5 if i got one, because I don't want to lose it. So I would still try to win and get a valour, which rises my chance to keep the x5.

Just asking, because I think some people could really abuse this.

P.S.: Especially on siege mode.

[Xant]

Could just reset it back to x5 if no valor is gotten that round.

[Heibai]

Could just reset it back to x5 if no valor is gotten that round.

That's actually a good idea, some kind in the middle.

[Huscarlton_Banks]

Encouraging playing well is always good.

Alternatives:

If already at x5, you keep a "valour point" which gets used the next time you would lose your multi.

If already at x5, you instantly gain exp tick(s) based on player count and score difference.

[ROHYPNOL]

Encouraging playing well is always good.

Alternatives:

If already at x5, you keep a "valour point" which gets used the next time you would lose your multi.

If already at x5, you instantly gain exp tick(s) based on player count and score difference.

This sounds nice but I think it would be a lot harder to implement.

[Heibai]

If already at x5, you keep a "valour point" which gets used the next time you would lose your multi.

When I started to play cRPG I actually thought that valour was some kind of an "extra life" which you can stack up to avoid the next multi loses and count it as a win instead.
Well, close enough, maybe because I never paid attention at my multi when i got valour (pretty rare early), only when I lost with valour.

[Tydeus]

I like the concept that the DS games use for penalties. You die once, you lose your shit, but nothing permanent or severe happens. Die twice in a row though, gg. Mistakes are integral to improvement, so why penalize single mistakes rather than continuous mistakes, and reward improvement at the same time? For an example of how this could work in implementation: If you have a x5 and you lose, getting set back to x1 is obnoxious, but maybe if you won the round after you lost, you'd be able to get your x5 back. You could also do the same with valour. Lose one round when you don't get valour, you get a x1, get valour the next round though, and you get what you had before you lost.

Of course, this whole thing is undermined by how score is handled. The score system needs improved, most notably by reducing the proximity bonus

[Canuck]

Instead of going back to x1 just set the multi back by 1 or 2 every time you lose. It's so annoying to lose an x5 you helped earn and go back to x1 just because of a shitty round. If you have to earn multipliers 1 at a time it seems like you should lose them that way too

[MURDERTRON]

Instead of going back to x1 just set the multi back by 1 or 2 every time you lose. It's so annoying to lose an x5 you helped earn and go back to x1 just because of a shitty round. If you have to earn multipliers 1 at a time it seems like you should lose them that way too

Yea, isn't that how rage ball works?  If you don't contribute it rolls you back one.  You could use a similar concept.  And yes, proximity bonus needs to be reduced, especially for shielders.  Anyone remember that HOC guy who would never swing in strat battles?  He'd be at the top of the scoreboard and 0-20.

[Mr.K.]

Score is not a good way to calculate one's contribution to the team. Cav has easy time getting valour, as do melee classes when they move as a group. But archers, xbows and so on rarely get points for their contributions to the team. Same for guys harassing enemy ranged either on foot (ninjas) or as cav (melee/ranged cav) or covering your own ranged from those threats. On siege the score system actually promotes stupid tactics like defending the front walls instead of the flag.

Either the point system has to be changed to better reflect your contribution to the team or extra multis for "best players" should not be a thing. Getting valour in a good team is already many times easier for a mediocre player than it is in the losing team.

[BlindGuy]

But... archers and xbows dont DESERVE valor, at ANY point. Well, that's just MO of course. It's also my opinion that putting wpf into crossbows should immedietly lock your access to website, IP and CD key ban you from crpg, and bluescreen your PC. But we cannot have everything. But while were on the subject: trying to join EU1 with a thrower or a horse ranged when the pop is below 10 should get you a 1day ban, to think about what a cunt you are.... but there we are.

[Tydeus]

Either the point system has to be changed to better reflect your contribution to the team

This, I don't think there is anything conceptually wrong with the score system. I think it just needs to reward more aspects of what can actually be considered "supporting ones team", and reward less, some of the others(simply following someone around).

But... archers and xbows dont DESERVE valor, at ANY point.

Pretty sure the word valor was arbitrarily chosen to represent the function. That is to say, ranged certainly deserve the same rights to a multiplier that melee/cav have.

[Torben]

I'd like to see a reward system for teams that win a round by following commanders orders.  couldnt say how tho...