cRPG
cRPG => General Discussion => Topic started by: Michael on February 15, 2011, 03:54:38 pm
-
I think its pretty unfair that some guys can play with the top gear/ their fav gear all the time, while others having to use some shitty gear most of their playtime.
Since realism is not an argument in crpg, imho the price of items should be based on the threat they are to the enemy.
I am aware that other players would prefer other gear, but I now present some classes and the gear I (me personally) did best with. These are no fantasy builds, these are real builds and the gear I used is the gear those chars were most effective (in my hands):
Heavy Cavalry: Light Lance 1910 (gold), Long Spiked Club 3174, Black Armor 34239, Black Greaves 4629, Great Helmet 6723, Mamluk Horse 59986,
sum 110661
Archer: Leather Jerkin 669, Khergit Leather Boots 143, Nomad Bow 3156, Bodkin Arrows 4215, Bodkin Arrows 4215, Pickaxe 240
sum 12638
2h "Ninja": Leather Jacket 84, Khergit Leather Boots 143, Nodachi 10589
sum 10816
Polearm "Ninja": Leather Jacket 84, Khergit Leather Boots 143, Long Hafted Blade 4622
sum 4849
1h-shield: Leather Jacket 84, Khergit Leather Boots 143, Heater Shield 2712, Military Sickle 2468
sum 5407
(Light) Lancer: Light Lance 1910, Khergit Leather Boots 143, Heater Shield 2712, Khergit Lamellar Vest 3342, Long Hafted Blade 4622, Sarranid Horse 23982,
sum 36711
Crossbowman/2hHybrid: Leather Jerkin 669, Khergit Leather Boots 143, Sniper Crossbow 17477, Steel Bolts 2136, Longsword 5123, Nordic Shield 1064,
sum 26612
With all those chars the same player (me, in that case) ends up with the same kill death ratio in the long run. Some builds need more time than others to become good, but when I compare them at level 30, its all the same. This will be same for most other players. For players that only ever have played archer, it might be a bit different, they might need some time to get used to melee, but I am talking about the long run anyway.
So I dont see why one build has only to pay the upkeep for 4849, and another for 110661, when the same player can bring the same result with both of them.
I dont know what the goal was of installing the upkeep system in the first place, but I remember chadz having said he didnt want to have an endgame all the time. If this is still the case, so why we dont see level 30 archers with hunting bow or at least without a greatsword or a polearm over the back?
I am not talking about realism this time, its just not okay that some people can play the mod ALL THE TIME with the very best gear, and others NEVER can play their favorite class, not once.
I dont like it, but I would be able to accept to ride my shitty Rouncey when at least the archers had to suffer a bit, too. Shared suffer, you know and so.
But not one happy all the time, others fucked all the time.
Also, compare archer and crossbowman, not fair neither.
Or 2h and polearm "Ninja".
-
loloollolololoollo i am michael and i am derp
i give my example build of cavalry black armor and other expensive as hell stuff while my other example classes receive shitty gear
lololol
-
Archer: Leather Jerkin 669, Khergit Leather Boots 143, Nomad Bow 3156, Bodkin Arrows 4215, Bodkin Arrows 4215, Pickaxe 240
sum 12638
Good luck trying to get kills from other than naked peasants.
-
So, you're point is that wearing the best armour in the mod and riding the second best horse in the mod should cost the same as wearing some of the worst armour (and no head gear!) in the mod? Or is your point that you suck at cav?
-
haha xD
+1 awesomebar for you michael! =D
-
This man is completely right why can a player who enjoys wearing peasant's armor and running around with a scythe play in the gear he favors 100% of the time whilst I cannot run around in the gear I love the most (full black armor with plated charger) even 50% of the time. makes no sense to me, anyways I'm out, hope they fix this.
-
HAHAHA. Best thread ever. Awesome work.
P.S.
Are you serious?
Read what you have written and think about it for a few seconds.
(Blackplate+Heavy Gauntlets+Plate Boots+Armet+Flameberge+Throwing Lances= less than 10.000 gold, everything else is blasphemy. :D )
-
i agree with michael
ive also tested out a few different builds and have had almost same k/d on all of them, and some are really much cheaper than others
and his point is that some "classes" need to have 1 light gear and 1 heavy gear to switch betwean to not constantly loose money
while other "classes" can run around in same gear all the time and be as effective as the first is with heavy gear
-
loloollolololoollo i am michael and i am derp
Thats (perhaps) what you would love to be, but there can be only one me, and thats me, sorry about that.
i give my example build of cavalry black armor and other expensive as hell stuff
As I said, thats the gear I used. Replace the Black Armor, and take Coat of Plates instead, but thats the minimum for a non-shield heavy cavalry, otherwise they will 1 shoot you of your slow-mo horse in a second.
while my other example classes receive shitty gear
As I said, it was the gear I (ME PERSONALLY) did best with. The gear I played with BEFORE patch, when money didnt matter, and still would, if money didnt matter.
Heavy armor on foot doesnt work for me.
I think it was before your time, but my first generation usually used the Longsword or Flamberge and Padded Jack as "Armor", and I only switched to Black Armor and Great Axe when I wanted to rush into the enemy and spam a bit.
If you want to write something usefull, post the builds and the gear YOU are doing best with.
-
milanese plate
flamberge
sallet with visor
cased greaves
another flamberge
sniper xbow
steel bolts
heavy gauntlets
THIS IS LIKE 150K UPKEEP GODDAMMIT I DEMAND EQUALITY
-
FUUU archery is expensive, look:
Milanese Plate 31632
Milanese Sallet 8811
Gauntlets 8534
Cased Greaves 4627
German Poleaxe 10585
War Bow 9250
2 x Bodkin Arrows 4215
-
Inb4lock
-
If you get the same k/d ratio with all of those builds I would suggest you play naked, seems like there's no difference between heavily armored and not armored for you? O.o
*facepalm*
-
Archer: Leather Jerkin 669, Khergit Leather Boots 143, Nomad Bow 3156, Bodkin Arrows 4215, Bodkin Arrows 4215, Pickaxe 240
sum 12638
Good luck trying to get kills from other than naked peasants.
If you were in charge in Fallens battles in Strategus that would explain why you got pwned all the time by Druzhina and their vassals.
Grind and give me a level 30 archer made after my secret advice with Nomad Bow and I kill all their archers for you.
Or at least bring a kill death ratio of 2, when the rest of your troops is totally incompetent.
When I play archer, then only for one reason, because I hate archers and love to kill them. I will never understand why some archers want to shoot heavy armored shielders like the Searaiders.
I shoot archers. And I kill many of them.
When I have the time I shoot unarmored horses, too.
I dont need more than 3 power draw. 4 perhaps, and Khergit Bow, but doesnt make a difference, so I would stick with Nomad to save your money.
-
I hate doing this... responding seriously to a troll thread. I am doomed.
However, and let me start out by saying that you really suck a presenting your case Michael, a part of your idea does hold merit.
I would however phrase it differently, and all in all avoid the cavalry comparison as they are a very influencing factor in team wins.
My point is: Ranged vs. Melee, ranged is far cheaper in equipment, while retaining the same effectiveness on your team (I am not talking about K:D as that is just epeen talk). First and foremost melee's in general pay for more more armor, while not increasing their effectiveness significalntly for their team with the increasing prices.
The same goes for internal balance in melee class, where some class needs more equipment to reach an effect.
-
If you guys want to troll visit another board, cause this is the wrong one. If you actually have something HELPFULL to say, do it, but when you are only trolling and acting childish, go to your spam-board, it's made for you guys anyway, why don't you use it?
I agree. My archer can play every round in his max armour, but my main cavalry character has to fight without a horse for 99% of the time, because upkeep would make me pay too much. My 2h can run around and slaughter people with his best armour, while my cavalryguy's total cost is above 100.000 while only using A DESTRIER.
I myself haven't got a decent lvl Xbow guy yet.
=> horse upkeep and Xbow upkeep are over the top
-
If you want to write something usefull, post the builds and the gear YOU are doing best with.
Build: 18/21 or 21/18 (both works)
Max IF, PS, ATH, and WM.
weapon: German Greatsword 11686
Body: Black Armor 34239
Head: Armet 9754
Hands: Hourglass Gauntlets 8929
Boots: Mail Boots 3119
Sum: 67727
My regular gear;
Weapon: Masterwork Katana 8623 or Longsword 2562
Body: Black Lamellar Vest 1671
Head: Black Hood with Mask 23
Hands: Wisby Gauntlets 4848
Boots: Khergit Leather Boots 72
Sum: 15237
Stats difference:
Regular gear: 65 armor points
Optimal gear: 160 armor points
Regular gear is less weight tho, there are some math to be showed here (dmg ratio and ability to soak damage etc) , but i gotta go..
But in conclusion, its fine.
-
i agree with michael
I have noticed you in game, you are a very good player.
Good to see that you are not only a very good player (some sort of a Nerd/ Freak like many others in this community), but also a very intelligent person. =)
ive also tested out a few different builds and have had almost same k/d on all of them, and some are really much cheaper than others
Like I said. Thanks for another competent statement.
and his point is that some "classes" need to have 1 light gear and 1 heavy gear to switch betwean to not constantly loose money
Exactly.
But well, wait, its more than that.
Some classes can even afford to run around with gear they shouldnt even have (archer with german greatsword/long hafted knobbed mace) and they can do that ALL THE TIME.
while other "classes" can run around in same gear all the time and be as effective as the first is with heavy gear
The last words are most important.
The average player with a dedicated horseman build (no points in athletics) cant do shit once his horse died in one or two shots. If he wants to make money, he cant even afford to carry a second weapon, because the shitty Rouncey costs already more upkeep than the entire equipment of other classes/ builds.
-
There is only one sort of people that are more annoying than stupid people: Stupid people that think they are smart.
If you get the same k/d ratio with all of those builds I would suggest you play naked, seems like there's no difference between heavily armored and not armored for you? O.o
*facepalm*
I am not responsable what you understand or may not understand.
In Lisas example, I (ME PERSONALLY) would do way better with the "cheap" gear.
I used the Black Armor, I was curious, had the cash, and wanted to try it. I had 11 athletics and still, I was so slow. I couldnt dodge arrows any more, I lost so many wpf that I couldnt use the Tears any more, I couldnt backpedal any more, and for what price? That I could take one more arrow that I would have (most likely) dodged anyway?
I dont play naked, because I dont want to die because of a friendly arrow in my back while I am fighting. With the Leather Jacket I can survive a friendly arrow. Against enemy, I have my shield, or my footwork. Thats why it works for me the way I said.
I hate doing this... responding seriously to a troll thread. I am doomed.
I would however phrase it differently, and all in all avoid the cavalry comparison as they are a very influencing factor in team wins.
Good archers, I am aware that there are only about 5 good archers in crpg, make a difference at every map in crpg.
3 of them in one team, and some half-decent melee warriors watching their back, is an almost secure victory, on every map.
Cavalry can shine on a couple of maps, when the horseman plays smart, or the enemy extremely stupid. On most maps, however, cavalry is harder to play than the infantry classes.
Bruce, I will ignore for now. He is in Gnjus squad, so he should have some good points, I dont see yet.
You, Aemaelius/ Golden Goose Guy, and Xant, have still so much to learn.
I remember your brilliant suggestions to camp the hill to defend the x1, with not one single competent archer in our ranks, but 5 archers in their top ten.
Unfortunately, enough "Lemmings" always follow "orders", even if the commander is totally incompetent.
Xant, from what I heard from Bjord, you are a decent duelist.
From what I saw from you on the battlefield, you are a horrible (battle) player. You rush, without a shield, forward, and get spammed with ranged shit.
You rush, forward, never look around and get backstabbed by cavalry.
You rush, forward, get outnumbered by a group of enemies and die.
-
Yeah mang, my average KDR in battle is 0.2
-
I would actually have to agree. He presented this in a rather outrageous manner, but I find it ridiculous that I can wear heavy-medium armor with 3 weapons and a shield all the time and earn money. This is hardly what upkeep should be allowing, no? I've been using my full heavy plate set just to feel like my money is being used, even though I do poorly in plate. Meanwhile, you see excellent cav like Rohypnol who have to be naked with one weapon to afford being on their horse for long. Admittedly, he uses the expensive Courser, but I still find it a bit silly how expensive they are. IMO, increase upkeep significantly on footmen and archers.
-
Xant is nub, don't listen to him.
Anyway, just because you do best as cav while riding top tier horse with top tier armor doesn't mean you should be able to upkeep that stuff. There is quite a few great cavalrists (Tommy comes in mind) as well as great xbowmen (DaveUKR for example) that are able to pwn your and everyone other's face and don't need to wear the best possible gear in every slot.
I'm not really sure why I'm responding seriously to this though, since the OP bares the mark of trolling all over it.
-
There is only one sort of people that are more annoying than stupid people: Stupid people that think they are smart.
I completely agree with you.....Also I love how smart equals agrees with you in your mind.
As to the topic, yes there is some imbalance in regards to cost, but I don't see it as a huge problem. Cavalry is expensive for a very good reason imo. Good cavalry can make or break a team on the right map. If the map isn't suited for cavalry, just go cheap footman and build up that cash for a good map.
-
There is only one sort of people that are more annoying than stupid people: Stupid people that think they are smart.
My, my, didn't expect you to come to this conclusion all by yourself.
Does that mean we are done here?
-
What a load of horse shit.
First, cRPG is not about 'classes' , so your post is not off to a good start. What you have described is really just styles of play. For example: a 'Ninja' is not a class; it's just someone using a themed two-hander, a face mask and some light armour.
And the main thrust of your argument is nonsense: because you do equally well with varying 'builds' of varying price, then everyone else should to. Thus, all 'builds' - or rather the equipment they use - are more or less equal in effectiveness, but their prices are not. So you say:
"price of items should be based on the threat they are to the enemy"
But according to your example 'builds' using cheap, light armour and weapons are just as effective as expensive, heavy or high stat items.
In claiming this you're saying that having top tier weapons and armour offer the player no bonus, so they should not restricted by price - everything, essentially, should cost the same.
I'm going to call bullshit on this one. I think you're lying about your performace with cheap 'ninja' characters and the like. You're lying in the hope that you'll convince people that top tier weapons and armour don't matter, that way when the prices are reduced you can simply ride around atop a charger in your black armour 'pwning noobs' all day long.
Nice try.
-
I completely agree with you.....Also I love how smart equals agrees with you in your mind.
As to the topic, yes there is some imbalance in regards to cost, but I don't see it as a huge problem. Cavalry is expensive for a very good reason imo. Good cavalry can make or break a team on the right map. If the map isn't suited for cavalry, just go cheap footman and build up that cash for a good map.
a good archer can win the game too...
-
I was thinking oh nice a good analysis of upkeep being unfair between ranged and melee classes (melee need armor to be effective more than ranged, so they need more expensive equipment), but after reading it, i can't support the OP. Or maybe he was just trolling.
-
Nice try but your gear loadout for the 1h/shielder is completely crap, and your ninjas have no throwing weapons. You can't play your "elephant" anymore? Good. Upkeep is fine and doing it's job perfectly, especially if it pisses you off. Go GTX already and spare us your idiocy.
-
I like the upkeep system quite a bit as it is. By having to watch my maintenance costs, I need to make compromises in the what gear I bring to the battlefield. This removes the "crutch" of eventually grinding out best in slot gear and in the long run, only makes me a better player and encourages a better equipment variety out in the field. Even with upkeep as it is, you've got a lot of room to build a good set that won't make you go broke. In short, upkeep saved this mod for me.
-
In all seriousness, the upkeep system was designed to prevent things like heavy cavalry or even medium-heavy cavalry (such as people on destriers with armour and so on), as well as top notch armour from being upkeepable all the time, and it suceeded in that.
Now you can afford the best armour if you're a 2h/polearm foot infantry, which makes quite a bit of sense given they're the class which needs the most armour. Horsemen can't afford a lot, which makes them more vulnerable to foot solidiers and ranged (which is good balance), neither can crossbowmen/etc. There are a few kinks which could use sorting out and a few things which could use a rebalance, but on the whole the upkeep system does a good job.
Before upkeep about a third of the population if not more were tincans, often on armoured horses, which was broken - a armoured man on a armoured horse provided you with a huge advantage, and we began to see more and more heavy cavalry (including heavy HAs) since everyone wants to play the strongest classes. On the other hand, light horses, while they can be a massive advantage, are also fragile and often end up slaughtered by ranged if they're not very careful. So it's not the default thing to gravitate to.
I've played, since the patch, light lancer (on a alt), medium-armoured crossbow/polearm hybrid, medium armoured archery/polearm hybrid, medium pure polearm (with spear and shield in addition to a normal weapon), and 2h/crossbow hybrid. I haven't found upkeep to be a problem on any of these, and found them all to yield more or less the same K/D and on the whole make money. (By medium armour, I mean heraldric mail and stuff like that)
Also I played most of my archery/polearm hybrid before the archery damage buff and found it most fun then (because agispamming whores couldn't really do a lot of damage to me, and I sure as hell could to them with my 7 PD/PS build).
-
You can't play your "elephant" anymore? Good. Upkeep is fine and doing it's job perfectly, especially if it pisses you off. Go GTX already and spare us your idiocy.
WORD UP. 100% correct, Gorath. We should be thankful to be in a game where the devs laugh at this guy as much as the rest of us.
Upkeep needs tweaking, but the OP has managed to gloss over every legitimate upkeep issue and instead make the most incomparably insane cases, to justify him using his black armor+elephant+noskill 'style' of play.
Your trolling needs WAY more effort than just a lengthy post, man. If you were good, you'd come up with only mildly false arguments that could look true on the surface. Sad, sad, sad.
-
I would actually have to agree. He presented this in a rather outrageous manner, but I find it ridiculous that I can wear heavy-medium armor with 3 weapons and a shield all the time and earn money. This is hardly what upkeep should be allowing, no? I've been using my full heavy plate set just to feel like my money is being used, even though I do poorly in plate. Meanwhile, you see excellent cav like Rohypnol who have to be naked with one weapon to afford being on their horse for long. Admittedly, he uses the expensive Courser, but I still find it a bit silly how expensive they are. IMO, increase upkeep significantly on footmen and archers.
just to point out... Rohypnol is usually top 3 on his team while running around naked on a courser with a light lance. cavalry is very powerful in this game, and the current way of balancing that is the cost. it is very expensive to rock a horse and heavy armour and a great lance and a shield and a sword... but it needs to be expensive. if everyone could afford to do it all the time, then everyone would. ever been a server where 90% of the enemy team is cav? it sucks... alot. there is an easy solution for those who want to do cavalry... play a low cost build for one gen, save up a ton of cash, do cav the next gen. look at goretooth, he does archery gen every now and then to build up funds for his normal build. maybe you will argue archery doesnt cost enough, but you can put on black armour and grab a bec while using a bow effectively... its just not worth it.
one solution could be to have armour classes. instead of cost being related directly to the effectiveness of the armour... we could instead have it reflecting the efficiency of the armour. we could have light armour which varies in weight from say 0.5 to 10 weight... and goes from say 50gold to 15000 gold... then medium could be 11-20 or so, which would cost say 200-25000 gold, then heavy could be 20-40 weight and cost 500-50000 gold... this could actually be pretty sweet because what we could do with it... is have the strength requirments be much higher for the different classes of armour. say light takes 3-12 strength, medium 12-18 and heavy 18-24... also we could have the cheaper armour have crappier weight to body armour ratios compared to the more expensive... example: the 500gold heavy armour might be 40 weight for 50 body armour, where the 50000gold one might be 25 weight for 55 body armour. one is clearly better... but the cost is very high thus making it hard for players to maintain. i might work on this idea a bit more if people express interest.
some examples
light armour1 50gold 10 weight 20 body armour. its cheap and easy to maintain, but weighs a lot for what it does.
light armour 10 15,000 gold 7 weight 30 body armour. its expensive, but offers better protection at reduced weight.
medium armour4 4500 gold 17 weight 38 body armour.
medium armour 8 20000 gold 17 weight 44 body armour.
this would make it so that some armour is superior to others... except that it would also make money more important... this could also be used to allow people to play styles they want for a cheaper cost. if people want to wear the cheap heavy armour... they can have good defense but will be very slow and ponderous. a real trade off. this could also balance horses better... introduce some geniunely shitty horses that dont cost much. they would be easy to deal with, but hey its a horse... or is it? armoured donkey, 5000gold. 20 speed 100hp 50 armour 10 charge damage. 5 manuevre.
-
Cavalry have heavy lance of win, they need nerf, not buff.
-
Ive seen Rohynol and Ruffies who always go as naked cav, but they dont have to.
They probably do it just for fun or something as their gear loadoat is probably less than 30k.
Theyre good cav, but fairly useless once dehorsed cuz of their nakedness and lack of alt weapon.
I dont know what theyre saving up for by always being naked cuz I never see them in any armour whatsoever.
-
They wear plate/transitional occasionally. And aren't 90% of cav useless once dehorsed? Its hard to escape the mob that descends.
-
They wear plate/transitional occasionally. And aren't 90% of cav useless once dehorsed? Its hard to escape the mob that descends.
Play better, top cav don't have this problem. Only retarded cavalry have it.
-
Every cav who likes to take risks (in other words isn't a lamer who only runs away when you look at him) has it once in a while. But a footman isn't much better off when mobbed the majority of times...
Unless you avoid mounted duels like hell or always win them, you'll be often dismounted and can just fight as a normal footman, except for weaker weapons and a few skillpoints. But that's the price.
-
Real elephants are cool but I really don't miss the elephant and tincan era of this mod.
Thanks chadz for making this game more fun.
-
TBH I just want my gear to cost more.
-
TBH I just want my gear to cost more.
+1
-
TBH I just want my gear to cost more.
This means you are free to use the gear you like best for your build, while others can't, i guess you think this is positive because it gives you an advantage, but it isn't fair.
-
Maintenance system is there for a reason.
Before it, there was much less variety among players, and everyone seemed to end up with milanese and a big sword or polearm, or on a charger, or god forbid the lvl40+ heavy horse archers.. Even I had a build which was pretty insane back then, although the gear was cheap.
Anyway, wanted to comment on Mateys idea:
"one solution could be to have armour classes. instead of cost being related directly to the effectiveness of the armour... we could instead have it reflecting the efficiency of the armour. we could have light armour which varies in weight from say 0.5 to 10 weight... and goes from say 50gold to 15000 gold... then medium could be 11-20 or so, which would cost say 200-25000 gold, then heavy could be 20-40 weight and cost 500-50000 gold... this could actually be pretty sweet because what we could do with it... is have the strength requirments be much higher for the different classes of armour. say light takes 3-12 strength, medium 12-18 and heavy 18-24... also we could have the cheaper armour have crappier weight to body armour ratios compared to the more expensive... example: the 500gold heavy armour might be 40 weight for 50 body armour, where the 50000gold one might be 25 weight for 55 body armour. one is clearly better... but the cost is very high thus making it hard for players to maintain. i might work on this idea a bit more if people express interest."
I also had that idea a long time ago, and it is interesting. One very important thing to note however, that the main drawback of heavy armor is a drastic reduction in maneuverability and speed. (except price ofc.)
Heavy Armor on a horse, effectively removes this drawback, so the minmaxing cav players would just take the cheapest (with the most weight) heavy armor and not pay the "price" in maneuverability loss.
-
I have noticed you in game, you are a very good player.
Good to see that you are not only a very good player (some sort of a Nerd/ Freak like many others in this community), but also a very intelligent person. =)
lol he agrees with your opinion (granted a stupid one) and he's intelligent. Well, well... thats logic for you :lol:
Some days ago I lost 20k of gold within 3 days using 51k worth of equipment. Now I use 53k worth of equipemnt and I have gained 35k gold. Seems extremely random to me this system.
-
If you get the same k/d ratio with all of those builds I would suggest you play naked, seems like there's no difference between heavily armored and not armored for you? O.o
*facepalm*
I suggest you try to make some honest statistics...
Wearing heavy armor doesn't give any particular advantage on the field. The high armor value is contered by the terrible lack of speed.
Punishing plate users (their "style") by having ridiculous prices for even low tier plate armors was the worst move ever. I think michael doesn't lie when he says he's doing roughly the same k/d with all these classes. But that's not really a reason to change the prices for the anime-looking stuff of the first "class". The problem being, bump cavalry is so noobish that most probably anyone doing it will end up with the same k/d. But other classes are much more skill linked, thus you can have roughly the same k/d with a super costly stuff and a super cheap one, if you are skilled enough (and trust me, new_player_FTW isn't really a total noob).
Light armored people seem not willing to recall that prepatch, most people weren't using plate armors, simply because it's not optimal for most builds. In fact it was realistic in the way that heavy charge style cavalry used heavy armors like they did in the middle ages, and footmen had generally lower armor, for better movement and attack speed. Now everyone is forced to use light or (if the rest of their equipment is cheap) medium armor.
It's perfectly logical ninja's and archers don't complain about upkeep, and flame/troll everyone trying to make it fair. I suggest we completly exclude those people who don't know what they are speaking about from this discussion, as all what they are doing is pure lobbying.
But don't read me wrong : there were some big issues post-patch. Like 40's armored HA, Plated helicopters (Recall of PANZERMARINE_Georges ?), snipers of death-comes-from-nowhere... Those were all solved by the retirement redesign and the new xp curve.
But what did upkeep solved ? Absolutly nothing. On top of that it created global issues very complicated to solve without removing upkeep. Now every succesfull noobish-proof (in the sense "even a noob can play it succesfully") build has all it's wpf points in one domain. Melee characters usually don't go over 15 strenght, because plate armors are useless and you can reliably two shot anyone with 5 PS. Now everyone tries to be as fast as possible because nothing else is important. Except even more lame crushthrough builds. So in average, any archer and even more, thrower will have more strenght than a melee char :?.
In the long term, upkeep is decreasing diversity on the battlefield. Just because 1) you can only upkeep the half of the armors you could pre-upkeep 2) there are very few cost-effective armors, and players start to know what these are 3) Melee characters try to go for as much equipment value as they can, thus increasing their armor up to a "limit" depending on their weapon loadout (but the total upkeep value of the weapon sets of the various melee classes are roughly the same). Many players do this, resulting in the vast majority of melee having armors in the same tier. Same thing for horses. Most horses are from tier 2. People that are playing cav over their income (or with little to no armor) use either sarranid or courser. Trolls play in cloth during 3 rounds then use their plate charger and black plate set for one round. That's another retarded effect of upkeep.
-
I suggest you try to make some honest statistics...
Wearing heavy armor doesn't give any particular advantage on the field. The high armor value is contered by the terrible lack of speed.
What? Plate doesn't punish speed ENOUGH if anything. It's all advantage no drawback and yes I used to be a plate crutcher back when the churburg first got added.
Punishing plate users (their "style") by having ridiculous prices for even low tier plate armors was the worst move ever.
It's logical. Plate armor was only afforded by the super wealthy when it was in use. Really expensive shit costs more to upkeep. Logic.
Light armored people seem not willing to recall that prepatch, most people weren't using plate armors, simply because it's not optimal for most builds.
Where did you play? Other than ninjas, peasants and a few players that refused to crutch on it everyone ran around in the heaviest armor they could buy. Every other person was wearing 50+ armor "plate" with a pike of tears and sniper x-bow. Or some variation thereof. Plate was more common than anything else on the field.
It's perfectly logical ninja's and archers don't complain about upkeep, and flame/troll everyone trying to make it fair.
Isn't what you're doing simply pure lobbying? It is fair currently. I don't understand how you think it's not "fair". If you wear expensive shit, you pay more in upkeep. That's about as fair as it gets. Top tier shit costs more gold. What could be more fair? Especially since in the realm of armors there are hardly any drawbacks at all and it's quite crutchy. Upkeep has brought an ultimate fairness to the field.
But what did upkeep solved ? Absolutly nothing. On top of that it created global issues very complicated to solve without removing upkeep. Now every succesfull noobish-proof (in the sense "even a noob can play it succesfully") build has all it's wpf points in one domain. Melee characters usually don't go over 15 strenght, because plate armors are useless and you can reliably two shot anyone with 5 PS. Now everyone tries to be as fast as possible because nothing else is important. Except even more lame crushthrough builds. So in average, any archer and even more, thrower will have more strenght than a melee char :?.
Again I wonder what game you're playing. Most people since the patch have realized that more str is far > than more agi nowadays. Even 1hers, who used to be agi based or balanced are going str nowadays. Hell Balb himself even redid his build for more strength, manofwar too. Hell I redesigned all of my characters to add more strength into the mix. The patch made it so that there's a far less chance of running into some agi-whore that breaks animations which means you don't have to worry about agi as much and can go for more 1-hit power in strength. No, I find that what's going on in the field is pretty much the opposite of what you describe. More people seem to be going with higher strength so they can 1-shot more often.
In the long term, upkeep is decreasing diversity on the battlefield. Many players do this, resulting in the vast majority of melee having armors in the same tier.
The same tier constitutes quite a huge variety in armor. Low and middle tier armors are on the field, which is a far cry better than pre-patch when it was pretty much plate everywhere since there's no drawback to it (unless you're an archer). But, to each their own. I find far more diversity on the field nowadays than any pre-patch period other than during the peasant wars.
-
In the long term, upkeep is decreasing diversity on the battlefield. Many players do this, resulting in the vast majority of melee having armors in the same tier.
I'm not sure if you're seeing only what you wish to but from my experience, this couldn't be further from the truth. The patch reduced the incentive to stack top tier items and discourages TinCan + Charger syndrome. I really hated the grindfest that was cRPG pre-maintenance and I actually ended up quitting for a number of months because it just wasn't any fun as a new casual player.
-
This thread is so full of win. Sorry if i am going to mispell anything, anyways as i started to play few weeks before the BIG patch or whatnot, i have some observations also.
Pre patch there were a lot of tincans, yeah, but it was fun ganging up on them and kill them, trying to pike down that mounted knight and everything, was thrilling. I was going for pure 2h build + plate, as i always wanted to play a knight. Prepatch the day i could afford the plate, i started using it, and it was quite a big advantage over lower geared people, as it simply left me more space for my errors. And hell i am still making a lot of them :)
After the patch, i started running around in leather and such, and i found myself forced off to duel server more often to practise a little before going to battle, as i could not block shit. Some days i play good, some others bad, but i guess that is just normal.
About the agi stacking whores, i would not say that is true, my last three generations were 24/15, 21/18 and now 18/21, pretty much balanced around getting some more wpf, as with the retirement changes i had a lot less in 2her skill. Anyways, my next gen is going to be again 24/15, as i was able to crush a lot with 8PS and usually oneshot most of people up to mail armor. (well, xcept other str hoarders).
off to watch some simpsons :)