cRPG

cRPG => General Discussion => Topic started by: AirPhforce on January 07, 2011, 03:27:06 am

Title: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: AirPhforce on January 07, 2011, 03:27:06 am
8k for 4 ammo? Seems a bit strange, and it's damn hard on the wallet for a dedicated thrower, who basically has to use 3 stacks of an 8k weapon minimum.

Let's use blunt one handers as a basis for comparison. The warhammer costs 7550, and deals 31 damage. However, for the not-so-rich, the Iberian Mace costs 4294 and deals 28 damage, 3 less damage, but it also has some extra reach. It's a cheaper alternative and has a plus-side aside from cost, while losing hardly any damage. This trend continues with another knockdown one-handed available for 2300.

What does thrown have? Jarids for 7700, and deal 40 pierce. Ok, that costs more then the warhammer, but you do need more then one equipped if you're a dedicated thrower, so the costs add up quickly. Seeing as most people don't like sinking 24000 into items without counting armor or a shield, lets look at the next cheaper option. 3856 gets you 34 damage and 4 ammo Javelins, but it's still absurdly expensive considering it's still only 4 spears, and a dedicated thrower would still need to equip more then one of them. So what's next? Wardarts, 1200, and only 25 damage.

A simple change is in order, I feel. Here are some reccomendations;

1. No separate upkeep costs for thrown items. If you equip 3 war-darts only one should be able to break. I feel that this quality should be unique to thrown if possible, as asking a guy using two-handers to only carry one two-hander for the sake of upkeep isn't much, but asking a dedicated thrower to only use 4 spears per battle is quite unfair.

2. Lower cost for higher-end throwing items.

Lastly, what I feel would be the optimal fix;

3. Lower cost for mid-tier thrown (Javelins should be closer to 2k each) and higher damage on bottom tier thrown (war darts should be 30 damage, not 25). This would bring the cost/damage ratio more in-line with the other weapon types.

That's all I got. Thanks for reading.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Leiknir on January 07, 2011, 03:47:13 am
It was once said they are that expensive because you can use them in multiple slots.

Well, now with upkeep one should recalculate their cost :/
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Mutant on January 07, 2011, 03:48:48 am
im a thrower and of course i completely agree. The upkeep of my heavy throwing axes is ridiculous.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: PhantomZero on January 07, 2011, 03:50:37 am
Throwing shit is supposed to be a counter to two-handed and polearms and horses, basically anyone without a shield at close range. People that have been running around with 12 throwing lances was a little ridiculous and forcing someone to wield four javelins to be a dedicated thrower still fits into chadz's 20k limit with 5k left to spend on armor, perfectly fine for a skirmisher.

Sure it may break more often, but it is only one thing that is breaking. Think about the two-hander who not only has to carry a weapon, but a shield or pike as well and the costs balance themselves out compared to someone that is a dedicated thrower.

Edit: Also keep in mind that you can loot equipment off the battlefield after throwing your spears, it isn't like you are helpless when you run out of ammo.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: AirPhforce on January 07, 2011, 03:55:27 am
Throwing shit is supposed to be a counter to two-handed and polearms and horses, basically anyone without a shield at close range. People that have been running around with 12 throwing lances was a little ridiculous and forcing someone to wield four javelins to be a dedicated thrower still fits into chadz's 20k limit with 5k left to spend on armor, perfectly fine for a skirmisher.

Sure it may break more often, but it is only one thing that is breaking. Think about the two-hander who not only has to carry a weapon, but a shield or pike as well and the costs balance themselves out compared to someone that is a dedicated thrower.

Listen bud, a 1 handed guy can carry 4k in weapons and be good. A 2 handed guy can carry 6k and be set. A thrown weapon guy can't be good for less then 20k without making a huge damage trade-off and he still only has 12 or 16 shots per round. No other weapon type has to make this kind of trade.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: PhantomZero on January 07, 2011, 03:59:02 am
Listen bud, a 1 handed guy can carry 4k in weapons and be good. A 2 handed guy can carry 6k and be set. A thrown weapon guy can't be good for less then 20k without making a huge damage trade-off and he still only has 12 or 16 shots per round. No other weapon type has to make this kind of trade.

Yeah but being at range means you don't need to spend as much on armor as the rest of the frontline infantry bud, don't forget you can just grab a sword off the field and suddenly you have a huge damage-increase with 12 or 16 shots per round. Archers and Crossbowmen can do something similar.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: AirPhforce on January 07, 2011, 04:01:05 am
Yeah but being at range means you don't need to spend as much on armor as the rest of the frontline infantry bud, don't forget you can just grab a sword off the field and suddenly you have a huge damage-increase with 12 or 16 shots per round. Archers and Crossbowmen can do something similar.

By that logic, an archer could do the same, so making each stack of arrows cost 8k would be balanced. I mean, they can just pick up a sword off the ground and use it!
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Mutant on January 07, 2011, 04:06:05 am
the said thing is we are close range skirmishers so we do need armor :P so for me its armor(which is just mail so not too expensive), shield and 3 sets of throwing axes. Imagine if i were using heirloomed throwing weapons... wouldnt happen
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: PhantomZero on January 07, 2011, 04:08:23 am
By that logic, an archer could do the same, so making each stack of arrows cost 8k would be balanced. I mean, they can just pick up a sword off the ground and use it!

Arrows do cut damage now and are much less lethal, keep in mind they also have to buy a bow and are almost useless against 1h and heavy cavalry. Don't complain as a thrower because "Oh no, I ran out of javelins what will I do now! Woe is me!"  that isn't a very good excuse because you aren't really supposed to fill up all four slots with javelins, they are a support weapon to take out heavily armed opponents, stop using them against peasants.

Also, heirloomed weapons use the base cost for repairs I believe, and 5k is a lot to spend on armor.

Edit: Well a cursory search shows people saying that heirloomed weapons do not use the base cost  of the original for repairs, so don't use them all the time maybe?
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: AirPhforce on January 07, 2011, 04:13:15 am
Arrows do cut damage now and are much less lethal, keep in mind they also have to buy a bow and are almost useless against 1h and heavy cavalry. Don't complain as a thrower because "Oh no, I ran out of javelins what will I do now! Woe is me!" that isn't a very good excuse because you aren't really supposed to fill up all four slots with javelins, they are a support weapon to take out heavily armed opponents, stop using them against peasants.

Also, heirloomed weapons use the base cost for repairs I believe, and 5k is a lot to spend on armor.

Edit: Well a cursory search shows people saying that heirloomed weapons do not use the base cost  of the original for repairs, so don't use them all the time maybe?

So what's a dedicated thrower supposed to do? This topic is ABOUT dedicated throwers who have to have 3 stacks of a thrown weapon, and a shield, and NOT for the guys in plate with a two-hander, pole-arm, shield, and jarids for fun.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: PhantomZero on January 07, 2011, 04:22:30 am
So what's a dedicated thrower supposed to do? This topic is ABOUT dedicated throwers who have to have 3 stacks of a thrown weapon, and a shield, and NOT for the guys in plate with a two-hander, pole-arm, shield, and jarids for fun.

If you must be a dedicated thrower on the cheap, use wardarts. You get 7 of them with 25 PIERCE damage, a potential  175 points of damage for one stack and 525 if you carry around 3 bags of them. Compared to only 408 using 3 bags of Javelins at 136 per bag .
 
I would agree that an increase in the amount of javelins in a bag could be increased from 4 to 6 but I really don't think you need to play with the costs.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Surol on January 07, 2011, 04:54:29 am
nothing but things that upset me in every forum...

yep use darts even though they are laughed at even in native for being a waste of slot since it takes longer to kill somone with them then for a guy to run up and cut your head off.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Kophka on January 07, 2011, 04:55:19 am
It's really not that bad on paper. Here's a good skirmisher load out -

(click to show/hide)

Like I said, not bad on paper. But then start thinking about those 8 shots you spend almost 8k on. Medium Xbow+steel bolts for same price does more 2x the damage, with 2x the ammo. Now remember that throwings accuracy is rather poor compared to the other ranged options as well. And remember that throwing weapons now fly like frisbees made of lead, with a shot that people have time to eat something before side stepping. Worth almost 8k? Most likely not, just something that needs to be finetuned a bit more before it's all said and done.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: PhantomZero on January 07, 2011, 05:08:45 am
nothing but things that upset me in every forum...

yep use darts even though they are laughed at even in native for being a waste of slot since it takes longer to kill somone with them then for a guy to run up and cut your head off.

Why are you alone? Why isn't there someone helping stop a guy from running up and cutting your head off?

You guys can give me all the troll points or whatever you want, but you might as well just download Americas Army so you can become an Army of One™

How many kills would you guys personally like to have per round or for that matter at the end of the map?
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Surol on January 07, 2011, 05:15:25 am
i would like to not have 0 kills every fight due to a cav running my unarmored char down.

i would like to look at a skilled player if i can even tell that anymore since they are all in drab pesant gear and think i could give them a good fight before i die.

i would like this mod to be fun like last week

i would like this mod to not be native where everyone is the same.



sorry just upset that the game is not as fun for me as it used to be. now i just run and die like when i first played.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: PhantomZero on January 07, 2011, 05:25:13 am
i would like to not have 0 kills every fight due to a cav running my unarmored char down.

i would like to look at a skilled player if i can even tell that anymore since they are all in drab pesant gear and think i could give them a good fight before i die.

i would like this mod to be fun like last week

i would like this mod to not be native where everyone is the same.

These were all the exact problems before the patch.

Cavalry being too armored/good to be killed and running over peasants. Have you tried throwing anything at a horse? It takes maybe 3 darts at most or 1 if its a headshot or Javelin/Heavy Throwing Axe.

The good players all wore heavy armor, as a peasant you couldn't even hurt them and they could kick you to death while laughing as they dipped their hands into another bag of cheetos, how could you possibly give a good fight to that person as a level 15 character? This also ties into your forth point as before it was just who could rush to get the Sword of Cookies, Throwing Lances, Gothic Plate Armor with Bevor, Plated Chargers where everyone uses the same weapons (Boulder on a stick, Great Maul, Huscarl Shield, Sniper Crossbow etc.)

This game wasn't any fun for new players the way it was before and was seen as too grindy. Would you prefer to have everyone's characters get wiped every 2 months?
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: AirPhforce on January 07, 2011, 05:26:02 am
Why are you alone? Why isn't there someone helping stop a guy from running up and cutting your head off?

You guys can give me all the troll points or whatever you want, but you might as well just download Americas Army so you can become an Army of One™

How many kills would you guys personally like to have per round or for that matter at the end of the map?

We arn't talking about "Army of One" we are talking about the super-high cost of a person who puts all his points in power throw. That means 3x thrown and a shield. No melee weapons. No Army of One.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: PhantomZero on January 07, 2011, 05:29:40 am
We arn't talking about "Army of One" we are talking about the super-high cost of a person who puts all his points in power throw. That means 3x thrown and a shield. No melee weapons. No Army of One.

And i'm saying there isn't a cost unless you feel the need to be 1-shotting people while running around by yourself and wasting all of your javelins on the first man with a farm tool that you see.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Surol on January 07, 2011, 05:36:00 am
i was a heavy thrower now im a pesant i could take a few hits from the chargers and still get them off the horse now i get rsn over sand cant upkeep my throwing items. this is my new game.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: PhantomZero on January 07, 2011, 05:39:17 am
i was a heavy thrower now im a pesant i could take a few hits from the chargers and still get them off the horse now i get rsn over sand cant upkeep my throwing items. this is my new game.

Try hanging out with a guy holding a pike, he can protect you from horses while you throw darts at all the other poor people on the other team. Or are you going to try and tell me you always get matched against the best players in the game and they all have millions of gold in the bank and still run around with all the gear they used pre-patch.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: AirPhforce on January 07, 2011, 05:48:17 am
And i'm saying there isn't a cost unless you feel the need to be 1-shotting people while running around by yourself and wasting all of your javelins on the first man with a farm tool that you see.

I just think it's interesting that you think war-darts are a viable weapon. You have clearly never used a throwing character.

They have a shield? Whoops. I can't do anything. At all. Period. That's why all the dedicated thrown are pidgin-holed into using the "Bonus against shield" spears, which happen to be super expensive. 
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: PhantomZero on January 07, 2011, 05:59:00 am
I just think it's interesting that you think war-darts are a viable weapon. You have clearly never used a throwing character.

They have a shield? Whoops. I can't do anything. At all. Period. That's why all the dedicated thrown are pidgin-holed into using the "Bonus against shield" spears, which happen to be super expensive.

Why are you throwing shit at someone who is aware of you and using a shield? As a cavalry it would be stupid of me to charge at someone who is aware of me and is using a pike or throwing weapons.

Why do you feel the need to be 100% effective against everything in the game? Why not attack people who are distracted? Shields are much smaller now so try aiming for their feet (this also means if you miss you can just run back and pick up your expensive javelins)

Carrying a shield is literally the only reason to use a 1h weapon, if that shield is negated by a javelin, why bother playing a 1h?
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: AirPhforce on January 07, 2011, 06:07:06 am
Why are you throwing shit at someone who is aware of you and using a shield? As a cavalry it would be stupid of me to charge at someone who is aware of me and is using a pike or throwing weapons.

Why do you feel the need to be 100% effective against everything in the game? Why not attack people who are distracted? Shields are much smaller now so try aiming for their feet (this also means if you miss you can just run back and pick up your expensive javelins)

Carrying a shield is literally the only reason to use a 1h weapon, if that shield is negated by a javelin, why bother playing a 1h?


"I want to use this one weapon type exclusively, but it costs four times as much as the other weapon users who also decide to use one weapon exclusively!"

And to that you reply "Why do you feel the need to be 100% effective against everything in the game?" and "Don't forget you can just grab a sword off the field!" You either don't understand or are deliberately trolling.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Vicious666 on January 07, 2011, 06:09:51 am
i would like to not have 0 kills every fight due to a cav running my unarmored char down.

i would like to look at a skilled player if i can even tell that anymore since they are all in drab pesant gear and think i could give them a good fight before i die.

i would like this mod to be fun like last week

i would like this mod to not be native where everyone is the same.



sorry just upset that the game is not as fun for me as it used to be. now i just run and die like when i first played.


he is right


give us our fun back.

together with my plate triple loomed eslavona and   charger
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Kophka on January 07, 2011, 06:16:10 am
Did no one notice my post?  :cry:
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: PhantomZero on January 07, 2011, 06:29:01 am

"I want to use this one weapon type exclusively, but it costs four times as much as the other weapon users who also decide to use one weapon exclusively!"

And to that you reply "Why do you feel the need to be 100% effective against everything in the game?" and "Don't forget you can just grab a sword off the field!" You either don't understand or are deliberately trolling.

I'm just trying to come up with reasons for you to go the cheap route, everyone else in game is fine using 3 slots of javelins and war darts and are apparently not having a problem maintaining it, you seem to want throwing spears and lances to become the norm while plate armor and ~swordz of cookiez~ go out of style.

A sword is not effective against a 2 handed one or cavalry and unless you are packing tons of powerstrike not against tin cans either. A piercing weapon is effective against all armors and countered with archers and crossbowmen, the only thing as an infantry that can save you is a shield or the ineptitude of the thrower. You were complaining about having things be too expensive to maintain while I am trying desperately to show you that you aren't alone and when you have two guys with 8 javelins each that is plenty enough to hold off many times your number.

I did kophka, but you dont understand, its not DEDICATED enough, there aren't enough throwable weapons that I can use against my foe. What if I miss with those 8 javelins? What am I going to throw at him to BREAK HIS SHIELD and CRUSH HIS SPIRIT.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Surol on January 07, 2011, 07:11:29 am
i dont think he is talking about breaking a shield.

he is talking about affording a wep that can do more then sting at near melee range which is where a thrower stands.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Ganon on January 07, 2011, 07:21:23 am
I agree the cost is excessive even when using mid level weapons, and the suggestion to use low level/beginner's weapon forever is just a poor attempt at trolling.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: AirPhforce on January 07, 2011, 07:32:39 am
i dont think he is talking about breaking a shield.

he is talking about affording a wep that can do more then sting at near melee range which is where a thrower stands.

This, exactly.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Gorath on January 07, 2011, 07:32:42 am
I don't see how they need to be reduced when throwing has taken off like crazy since the patch and is tearing people apart since there's more mid-tier armor instead of everyone and their 2nd cousin being some plate crutching spammer.  Even more so since you can be just within melee range, start your attack and get an insta-jart in the face from less than a foot away.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: PhantomZero on January 07, 2011, 07:38:31 am
i dont think he is talking about breaking a shield.

he is talking about affording a wep that can do more then sting at near melee range which is where a thrower stands.

Yes but why do you need three stacks of javelins all the time? It would be perfectly fine to carry two and have 8 javelins.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Surol on January 07, 2011, 07:42:07 am
a max skilled player who throws alot can somtimes get that off in melee range its true.

to tell the truth i get killed more trying to get that last shot and leaving myself open then i kill.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: AirPhforce on January 07, 2011, 07:44:32 am
I don't see how they need to be reduced when throwing has taken off like crazy since the patch and is tearing people apart since there's more mid-tier armor instead of everyone and their 2nd cousin being some plate crutching spammer.  Even more so since you can be just within melee range, start your attack and get an insta-jart in the face from less than a foot away.

So make the good stuff worse and balance the cost accordingly. Im not talking about balance im talking about cost.

The point im trying to make is that throwing weapons don't have a cost-effective go-to thing to use, because they need to get 3 of them.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: PhantomZero on January 07, 2011, 07:50:24 am
So make the good stuff worse and balance the cost accordingly. Im not talking about balance im talking about cost.

The point im trying to make is that throwing weapons don't have a cost-effective go-to thing to use, because they need to get 3 of them.

War darts is that cost-effective go-to thing if you are too poor for javelins.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Gorath on January 07, 2011, 07:53:42 am
War darts is that cost-effective go-to thing if you are too poor for javelins.

^  This
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Surol on January 07, 2011, 07:54:00 am
here is the rub this is all a plot to keep players poor. so the guys at top can stay there then?

should i be using darts then for the next 2 months till i prove myself to a higher up and can use jav?
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: PhantomZero on January 07, 2011, 08:02:21 am
here is the rub this is all a plot to keep players poor. so the guys at top can stay there then?

should i be using darts then for the next 2 months till i prove myself to a higher up and can use jav?

I guess it is hard for me to understand why you guys can't afford 3 slots of javelins when my friend just made a new character for throwing and is currently maintaining 4 slots of javelins.

The guys at the top don't use all of their top gear all the time either, thats the entire point, you can't use the best shit all the time. At a multiplier of x1 permanently, you should still be able to afford 25k worth of gear.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Kophka on January 07, 2011, 08:10:18 am
The problem is that throwing is not cost effective. Even with 2 stacks of javs (mid tier) it's the same price as a mid tier crossbow and steel bolts. Same price, 1/2 the damage, 1/2 the ammo count, 1/4 the range, 1/3 the shot speed. Does that seem balanced?
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: PhantomZero on January 07, 2011, 08:15:33 am
Yes, it seems like javelins are quite effective considering there are at least 3 on each team and you are trying to compare apples to oranges.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Surol on January 07, 2011, 08:21:57 am
im going to give it a week and see if i can make it work. if i cant i think im done. the only reason im sticking around at all though is all the fun i used to have.

and no comment no how i was a tin can with a 28:0 this and that or whatever

i had plate for a week or two tops and only put it on for a few days max due to retirement.

best i ever had in plate was i think 10:6
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Kophka on January 07, 2011, 08:27:29 am
I didn't say they weren't effective, I said they are not COST-effective. And comparing apples to oranges is just fine if they are the same price, and they are both fruit (ranged). Just notice that the apple (javs), is half the size of the orange (xbow), with half the flavor. But still the same price. I'm honestly not sure where the influx of throwing is coming from, I've been a thrower for a while, and I'm rather disappointed with the changes. I've gained some accuracy while standing still (if I spend 100+prof points), but while moving, it's still same ol' same ol'. The shot speed was nerfed, and the range was reduced (they now fly like rocks with 0 PT used to). Add that to the extra upkeep if you bring more than one puny stack, and you'll see that it could use some fine tuning.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: bruce on January 07, 2011, 08:47:40 am
I have no issues upkeeping 31K of gear, myself (earning a tiny sum actually), so... don't see it as limiting to a thrower.

For instance consider basic mail: 3k + 3x jarids = 23K + a few K of random stuff / cheap weapon. Upkeepable? I'm sure. And there are cheaper options like throwing spears and especially javelins which let you have a lot of leeway with your loadout. I see throwers with 3 packs of jarids in the game so it obviously works for them, too. And I'm seeing a good number of throwers these days, too.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Spawny on January 07, 2011, 10:34:52 am
I'm a bit disappointed in throwing.

I heirloomed my throwing lances, made them about 11.5k per stack. Can't use them all anymore.

On the other hand, I don't have to. All the other stuff is just as effective, I just wished I heirloomed throwing axes or snowflakes or something.

For me, being a dedicated thrower means having high PT. That's it. Not other skills. No PS, IF, Ath, WM, Shield, nothing.

That leaves you with 13 or 14 PT at level 30 (can't remember which one it was).

With that much PT, hits with darts or wardarts are killshots. I don't need javelins or higher tier weapons to kill people. Just leaves me with more gold for armour :)
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Cyclopsided on January 07, 2011, 10:51:38 am
I have a thrower, Brunchlady, and I have been floating 4 stacks of throwing lances just fine. I have no trust fund of gold, i just made the character.

I was making money, quite a lot of it, when i was on the winning teams. And I would lose not all that much when i was on the losing teams. The money did start to drain, but by god the enemy team quickly had no horses so we usually began winning quickly.

When i run out of money, i'll use war darts and just pretend i'm an archer. my money will rise, then i get to go decide people's fate by clicking on them with throwing lances.
Except oh wait with war darts i do more damage than an archer + it is pierce  not cut! :O!


But i will say 41k cost in just throwing is a bit pric----- oh wait it is like wearing plate armor. it is top tier. Live with it. (however i think mid-tier throwing could drop price a bit)
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Ishar on January 07, 2011, 11:31:45 am
The upkeep costs are really low now with .201. And yes, throwing has a new golden age: I'm tearing people apart with my hybrid, much-much more one-shot kills than before.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Cyclopsided on January 07, 2011, 11:44:05 am
Hybrid is the way to go with the WPF the way it is.
You can easily have 100 in pole arm & throwing for basically the same price as 140 in throwing. I don't know the math, but me at lvl 20ish with low agi i have 80 pole 75 throw.
<3
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: Spurdospera on January 07, 2011, 12:22:06 pm
The upkeep costs are really low now with .201. And yes, throwing has a new golden age: I'm tearing people apart with my hybrid, much-much more one-shot kills than before.
Yeah, upkeep is really low. I have heavy jarids (around 8,6k?) and I only have to pay like 398 gold if it happens to break. Which is quite often if I stack 3 or 4 of them to battle.
Title: Re: I feel that the cost of thrown weapons needs to be reduced. (Comparison)
Post by: AssPunisher on January 07, 2011, 02:34:40 pm
Your throwing axes, lances and javelins are insta kill for me in 10k gold armor so reduce the damage as well then.