cRPG
cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Game Balance Discussion => Topic started by: Overdriven on July 23, 2011, 01:10:39 pm
-
Ok, so recently I decided to fire up a few alts, to see what the real difference in upkeep is between a variety of classes and try and gain an unbiased view. What I found is interesting. I decided to use only midrange equipment for all builds, to try and see what an average class cost is for each. Most of these equipment selections are based on observations from what other people use as medium range equipment on the servers, obviously there will be variants of all sorts, but this is just to try and gauge the situation.
So here it is:
2H:
Equipment:
1. Kerghit War Helmet (1775)
2. Sarrinid Guard Armour (8502)
3. Mail Chausses (1290)
4. Miaodao (8376)
5. Total = 19943
An average, medium armoured build with a relatively good weapon. I could get kills, it took a good few hits to kill me and so I was in the top portion of the server with an average KD ratio of 3:1. A very cheap class in comparison to most. I was hitting the top of the siege servers all morning with this alt (and actually found it quite fun) but it is by far the most cost effective build, as long as you don't use overly heavy armour, and on a STR build, you don't really need anything to costly to perform at a high level.
Crossbowmen:
Equipment:
1. Kettle Hat (1936)
2. White Tunic Over Mail (3459)
3. Mail Chausses (1290)
4. Crossbow (10474)
5. Steel Bolts (2563)
6. Mace (2925)
7. Total: 22647
A more expensive build than 2H, primarily depending on what armour you take and whether you go shield 1h, or 2h.
Archer
Equipment:
1. Studded Leather Coat (2679)
2. Leather Gloves (289)
3. Leather Boots (345)
5. Rus Bow (9974)
6. Barbed Arrows (1640)
7. Barbed Arrows (1640)
8. Total: 16867
At first glance this would appear to be a cheaper build. Archers naturally can't vary to much on armour due to penalties on wpf and so have to stick to the cheap stuff. Obviously you can throw a 1h weapon in there if you must instead of arrows. However, this is all very deceptive. The increased arrow breakage means that if you use anything more than Barbed arrows, you start forking out huge amounts for upkeep. 2 Sheaths on bodkins could certainly empty out your money coffers quickly, as could Tartar arrows. Right now barbed arrows and arrows are the most viable on any stronger builds than this.
Lancer
Equipment:
1. Kerghit War Helmet (1775)
2. Sarranid Mail Shirt (5823)
3. Mail Mittens (1376)
4. Mail Chausses (1290)
5. Desert Horse (12357)
6. Heavy Lance (9702)
7. Scimitar (4914)
8. Total: 37237
This is again, a very very average build, this could be increased by 10000 if you just wanted to use the next tier horses, even more for heavies. But due to the nature of needing a lance and a horse, the cost is double that of a 2h and Archer. Even though due to the lance nerf, 2h can beat lancers and lancers aren't as good as they were. In a lot of cases the 2h is the far superior in these builds. An average 2h could quite easily beat an average lancer build.
Horse Archer
Equipment:
1. Steppe Armour (195)
2. Nomad Boots (236)
3. Leather Gloves (289)
4. Desert Horse (12357)
5. Horn Bow (7896)
6. Barbed Arrows (1640)
7. Barbed Arrows (1640)
8. Barbed Arrows (1640)
9. Total: 25893
Again this appears cheaper than a lancer, but more costly than infantry. Yet it is again deceptive, due to the breakability of arrows, anything over normal arrows causes you a huge bleed in finance. This is also a very very average HA build. Most will use a courser, Arabian or Destrier, putting the cost up by another 10000.
Conclusions:
There will be many variations of these, and I did miss out throwing and 1h cav and shielder, partly because I haven't tried it yet and partly because I thought those with more experience in those builds could add a little more. But these are average equipment builds, anything less or anything more would make them useless, or OP for a examination of the upkeep.
It is my belief that upkeep needs to be balanced by effectiveness on the battlefield. Currently it isn't being done like that. 2h comes out as one of the cheapest builds, yet even me, a HA who has never been able to manual block, could consistently hit the top portions of the servers on my first time 2h after a couple of hours of using it.
Archers are weakened by the arrow upkeep as it is a hidden cost that doesn't appear until you start playing, but actually increases the cost of archery immensely. The same applies to HA. And due to the current nerfs I feel this is a little to harsh. Reduce the break ability of arrows again and I think archers would be in a relatively good place.
Lancers got a very heavy nerf last patch. A reduction in the lance angle and nerfs to the horses. Yet nothing was changed about upkeep. It is still by far one of the most expensive builds out there. I know it is still effective on the battlefield, but I think that it's price is to high compared to that of 2h. 2h lolstabs now outrange the lance on a head on fight. And lancers can only back stab. Therefore I think that costs should be readjusted to bring them closer to the average 2h builds. Obviously not that cheap, but still a lot cheaper than they are now.
Crossbows are hard for me to comment on. This build is often incoporated as a hybrid and I'm not entirely sure of the expense of making a pure xbower. But It appears to me that they are in a good place upkeep wise, although the cost of the crossbow is a little bit painful.
-
No love for the hoplite :cry:
You also forgot thrower.
And crossbow men uses arbalests not crossbows (the crossbow crossbow not the weapon type crossbow).
EDIT: Typo
-
No love for the hoplie :cry:
You also forgot thrower.
And crossbow men uses arbalests not crossbows (the crossbow crossbow not the weapon type crossbow).
Did you read the entire thing? Quote again :rolleyes:
'There will be many variations of these, and I did miss out throwing and 1h cav and shielder, partly because I haven't tried it yet and partly because I thought those with more experience in those builds could add a little more.'
And:
'Crossbows are hard for me to comment on. This build is often incoporated as a hybrid and I'm not entirely sure of the expense of making a pure xbower. But It appears to me that they are in a good place upkeep wise, although the cost of the crossbow is a little bit painful.'
I went with the hybrid version because that is the one I most commonly see. An arbalest is 2 slots, I went for the 1 slot one. But I did say it wasn't necessarily accurate on that account. Plus I'm using midrange equipment to balance this, not the best. So no I won't add the Arbalest in.
-
Why does your Archer not have a Hammer or the new 28 cut Hand Axe? You still have room for a zero slot weapon. Take the 1000 gold Hand Axe that is extremely common with 2 slot bow users and you will see a comparable price with the 2 hander you have.
Out of curiosity, since these were all alts, how did you survive contact with the enemy without a melee weapon?
Anywho, very interested read, rather detailed. I like it.
-
Why does your Archer not have a Hammer or the new 28 cut Hand Axe? You still have room for a zero slot weapon. Take the 1000 gold Hand Axe that is extremely common with 2 slot bow users and you will see a comparable price with the 2 hander you have.
Out of curiosity, since these were all alts, how did you survive contact with the enemy without a melee weapon?
Anywho, very interested read, rather detailed. I like it.
I didn't :lol: I simply tried to avoid melee. But yes I forgot the 0 slot weapon thing.
-
Lancers got a very heavy nerf last patch. A reduction in the lance angle and nerfs to the horses. Yet nothing was changed about upkeep.
Actually this is incorrect. Lance & arb/courser prices went up, so the majority of lancers upkeep increased substantially
-
Good idea - but poorly executed imo.
I agree arrow breakage is a bit deceptive (they should include their "upkeep price" in a parenthesis or something). So: Bodkin arrows: 5000 (10000). Would make it easier imo. (Not just to choose the right arrows, but for balance discussion)
I also agree that arrow upkeep should be lowered slightly from what I've seen, but as said, I don't have the real numbers.
However, saying that 2h is the most cost-effective build is a very bold statement. Yes, for just mindlessly spamming in siege servers it is (long, high damage wep + ppl will come to you + ppl don't give a shit about blocking in siege + narrow pathways = 2h galore duh), but try going to a small battle server with some skilled ppl and you will find yourself pretty ineffective rather quickly. It's the same as saying that HA is the most cost-effective because you proved that by being top scorer on an open plains battle map on a small server.
As said, like the idea, but I don't like the execution. Work on doing some more unbiased research (I'll help if you want ;) ), and I think it could be great!
-
Actually this is incorrect. Lance & arb/courser prices went up, so the majority of lancers upkeep increased substantially
I meant nothing changed as in it didn't go down in relation to the nerf. But if it went up that's even worse!
Good idea - but poorly executed imo.
I agree arrow breakage is a bit deceptive (they should include their "upkeep price" in a parenthesis or something). So: Bodkin arrows: 5000 (10000). Would make it easier imo. (Not just to choose the right arrows, but for balance discussion)
I also agree that arrow upkeep should be lowered slightly from what I've seen, but as said, I don't have the real numbers.
However, saying that 2h is the most cost-effective build is a very bold statement. Yes, for just mindlessly spamming in siege servers it is (long, high damage wep + ppl will come to you + ppl don't give a shit about blocking in siege + narrow pathways = 2h galore duh), but try going to a small battle server with some skilled ppl and you will find yourself pretty ineffective rather quickly. It's the same as saying that HA is the most cost-effective because you proved that by being top scorer on an open plains battle map on a small server.
As said, like the idea, but I don't like the execution. Work on doing some more unbiased research (I'll help if you want ;) ), and I think it could be great!
I'd disagree, I played a good few battles with my 2h alt as well as siege, and on both (a lot of siege maps have just as many open areas as battle maps) people blocked ect. Yes ocasionally there were areas to spam/hack in confined spaces. But a sweeping statement like 'zomg people on siege dont block' is a bit daft. They do. A Lot. I had plenty of good fights against other 2h, shielders ect who were blocking just as much as any battle server. And if anything your more prone to arrows ect on siege. The one thing you have to worry less about is cavalry. Plus I played the duel servers for a while, and kicked up just as good a score on there.
I really do think 2h is the most cost effective. A lot of 2h get very good scores with extremely average gear at the moment. They might have a good sword, but there are many that I rarely see in better armour than I was wearing. I think it definitely is the most cost effective, especially seeing as cavalry received that nerf. If an aware 2h can't take down a lancer atm, then they are doing something badly wrong. All you have to do is lolstab, jumpslash or sidestep and slash and it's easy to avoid the lance. Lancers are now near enough a pure back stabbing build against unaware players.
It may be a bold statement. But I think it is the correct one. Just there are too many people around who think that everyone should be punished if they can kill a 2h. Even though 2h is one of the cheapest builds vs effectiveness and K/D ratios in server.
-
Though this survey may be flawed in ways it does give a decent cross section of how various play styles compare in relation to their upkeep. My personal belief is that most play styles should be nearly equal in upkeep costs. Further I would prefer that heavier and costlier armors (which are not represented here) could be balanced in ways other than monetary differences, such as affecting WPF more heavily, to provide more diversity on the battlefield while maintaining fairness.
I do not see a simple way to use this information (how can you judge battlefield efficiency??) but hopefully someone will find this useful to produce a better and more balanced mod.
Thank you for your effort!
-
An interesting little study thing. Obviously it isn't a perfect, 'scientific' experiment with control groups and shit like that. I do not expect something like that from somebody playing a video game, however, and I am grateful for your experimentation. It made an interesting read, and shed some light on the subject of cost effectiveness and different classes.
I would like to share my own two cents, as a 1h/shield horseman!
As a cav player I can attest to the lavish expensiveness of the class. OP's equipment pretty fairly represents the normal lancer's 'average' loadout. Its not impossible to get gold as a cav player--of course. Let me share with ye my "grinder/normal" equipment loadout. With the following equipment I can bring in a steady trickle of gold, and I feel that it is as "optimized" as possible without sacrificing killing power, survivability, and monies. This loadout is for making gold:
1h/shield/cav loadout- The Grinder
Rouncey: 9,010
Lamellar Vest: 3,342
Shashka: 5,365
Round Cavalry Shield: 1,874
Rus Cavalry Boots: 412
Leather Gloves: 289
One Of The Fucking Head Socks: 45
Total: 20337
Your survivability is... limited. Your damage output, however, is good, for the Shashka is a great 1h weapon. It is the cheapest of 1h weapons that is over 100 length. Still, this is the cheapest build I could come up with whereby I can play the game and contribute to my team's victory.
Getting a mid-tier horse, so that you can actually fight people like a manly man and not die in the process, boost the cost quite a bit. A destrier costs 23,470 gold. My courser (loomed so that its HP is close to a destrier's) costs 19,838 gold. Even so, both die rather quickly.
How much does the most expensive suit of armor cost? Now, compare that to the metal horses' prices (ignore the warhorses, they fucking suck).
tl;dr: 1h cav sucks.
-
An interesting little study thing. Obviously it isn't a perfect, 'scientific' experiment with control groups and shit like that. I do not expect something like that from somebody playing a video game, however, and I am grateful for your experimentation. It made an interesting read, and shed some light on the subject of cost effectiveness and different classes.
I would like to share my own two cents, as a 1h/shield horseman!
As a cav player I can attest to the lavish expensiveness of the class. OP's equipment pretty fairly represents the normal lancer's 'average' loadout. Its not impossible to get gold as a cav player--of course. Let me share with ye my "grinder/normal" equipment loadout. With the following equipment I can bring in a steady trickle of gold, and I feel that it is as "optimized" as possible without sacrificing killing power, survivability, and monies. This loadout is for making gold:
1h/shield/cav loadout- The Grinder
Rouncey: 9,010
Lamellar Vest: 3,342
Shashka: 5,365
Round Cavalry Shield: 1,874
Rus Cavalry Boots: 412
Leather Gloves: 289
One Of The Fucking Head Socks: 45
Total: 20337
Your survivability is... limited. Your damage output, however, is good, for the Shashka is a great 1h weapon. It is the cheapest of 1h weapons that is over 100 length. Still, this is the cheapest build I could come up with whereby I can play the game and contribute to my team's victory.
Getting a mid-tier horse, so that you can actually fight people like a manly man and not die in the process, boost the cost quite a bit. A destrier costs 23,470 gold. My courser (loomed so that its HP is close to a destrier's) costs 19,838 gold. Even so, both die rather quickly.
How much does the most expensive suit of armor cost? Now, compare that to the metal horses' prices (ignore the warhorses, they fucking suck).
tl;dr: 1h cav sucks.
If 1h cav suck, why many players have awesome kdr using 1h cavalry?
-
If 1h cav suck, why many players have awesome kdr using 1h cavalry?
He meant upkeep-wise.
-
He meant upkeep-wise.
harle used cheap stuff yet he owned.
-
harle used cheap stuff yet he owned.
Maybe he's just damn awesome, because most 1h I see with that low equipment don't to do well. That's a very cheap cav build, but for the average player, you wouldn't get far with it.
-
Yes regarding upkeep cost.
Being an amazing cav player, I make the cheap build work :)
except for when people try to kill me, hense my rage at upkeep, for it is partly to blame for my deaths.
-
The increased arrow breakage means that if you use anything more than Barbed arrows, you start forking out huge amounts for upkeep.
This is sadly true.
I feel more like a Peasant Horse Archer than a Horse Archer. :oops:
Gifs me your gold!
-
Humm.... upkeep should be different following what you play.
I "heard" horses were "balanced" because of their price.
If you lower it, then everyone and their grandma will use one.
I still feel like Upkeep is really luck biaised, wich makes me rage a bit. When 6 of my 7 items breaks in a 3min30sec round play, i really feel bad (and so does my purse).
Thing is :
Archers with cheap bow : useless. You'll loose money on your arrows anyway, unless they are normal or tatar.
2handers with cheap weapons : decent, can loot better weapons easily. (2hand war axe is horribly good)
The new "grind" class, and still providing fun, is definitely the 2h/polearm, with 7 PS build. They can change armor following multiplier, change main weapon, add another one, etc... Archers/xbows/throwers stick to one low armor/weapon/ammo. No matter what. And loose money.
-
I think Upkeep should be removed or altered greatly. In it's current state, it does not belong in the game, it's just a flawed and imbalanced feature. It makes matches frustrating, losing & dying not fun, and it makes this game all about luck (whether or not you get the better team, flip a coin. i'm forced to leave matches otherwise). I just can't play anymore because of this, it's not entertaining nor does it improve my gaming experience. I don't want to downgrade or lose my gear just because I put time into into the game, and kept fighting even though I was losing, in fact I should be rewarded for that. We don't deserve this garbage, there's plenty of better alternatives. It's such a chore.
Advancing my character should be fun, but instead it's difficult and hardly possible. I shouldn't have to save my money through 4 generations to be able to even bankroll a full plate armor set. THAT ISN'T FUN, who the heck thought this was a good idea? Remember when C-RPG was laid back and enjoyable? Now we have to put up with this and it ruins the game for many! Trust me, I really tried to get into C-RPG and tolerate this but I can't anymore. This is the reason I quit months ago, and it still remains! Ridiculous.