cRPG
cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Game Balance Discussion => Topic started by: bilwit on May 22, 2011, 12:31:08 pm
-
My guess is it's because it's so much easier to grind gold on some builds than it is on others. Allow transfers between alts and soon you'll have everyone playing archer.
lolwut. Being an archer doesn't make you any more gold than any one else unless you're the type of person that wears the most expensive stuff every time you play.
-
It's much easier to do well as an archer wearing just clothes than it is to do well as melee wearing just clothes, because armour is much more essential to that class's survival. On average, archers get a whole hell of a lot more gold.
-
as an archer you have to pay upkeep for a great bow+2 great arrows ; If you do a low str build, and you wear a bardiche, or something rly cheap as a weapon and cheap clothes, you gain more cause you don't have to wear 2 bags of arrows+great bow ;:/
And you can do it well also as melee, with ninja clothes, ask ninjas YAHAHAHAHAH
-
lolwut. Being an archer doesn't make you any more gold than any one else unless you're the type of person that wears the most expensive stuff every time you play.
Lol !
Get your head out of your ass. Seriously.
The only thing you need to pay for is your bow, and a little for arrows too :
11100 for a warbow, which is the most expensive. Nearly all archers use that one, so there's plenty of archers using the most expensive equipment they can. There's no other class that can do that.
Now let's see a realistic cavalry equipment :
Courser 19818
Knightly Arming Sword 8944
Heraldic Mail with Tabard 7170
Open sallet 5645
Knightly Heather Shield 4328
Splinted Leather Greaves over mail 1817
Mail mittens 1376
An half decent cavalry loadout is 3x the total price of your archer equipment. Take a very bad horse and you can push it to 2.5x. A decent infantry loadout is roughly 2x more than the archery equivalent. When you want to survive to projectiles a little longer, you can easily add 10k.
So yes, money exchange between alts would certainly make up a little bit for the serious class imbalances caused by upkeep (see the numbers above).
-
as an archer you have to pay upkeep for a great bow+2 great arrows ; If you do a low str build, and you wear a bardiche, or something rly cheap as a weapon and cheap clothes, you gain more cause you don't have to wear 2 bags of arrows+great bow ;:/
How is using a top tier bow with expensive ammo in any way comparable to using minimal armour and cheap melee weapons? Stop being thick, it's obvious that archers pay the least upkeep on the whole. There's nothing stopping you from playing naked with a hunting bow, either, but it's hardly ideal.
And you can do it well also as melee, with ninja clothes, ask ninjas YAHAHAHAHAH
You can do well, but it's a lot harder. Ninjas generally get their asses kicked in group combat, they only thrive on backstabs. Even then the ninja loadout costs the same as a fairly high-end setup for a dedicated archer with no heavy armour.
Archers pay less upkeep, it's an established and completely self-evident fact. Please stop arguing and get back to the topic.
-
Lol !
Get your head out of your ass. Seriously.
The only thing you need to pay for is your bow, and a little for arrows too :
11100 for a warbow, which is the most expensive. Nearly all archers use that one, so there's plenty of archers using the most expensive equipment they can. There's no other class that can do that.
Now let's see a realistic cavalry equipment :
Courser 19818
Knightly Arming Sword 8944
Heraldic Mail with Tabard 7170
Open sallet 5645
Knightly Heather Shield 4328
Splinted Leather Greaves over mail 1817
Mail mittens 1376
An half decent cavalry loadout is 3x the total price of your archer equipment. Take a very bad horse and you can push it to 2.5x. A decent infantry loadout is roughly 2x more than the archery equivalent. When you want to survive to projectiles a little longer, you can easily add 10k.
So yes, money exchange between alts would certainly make up a little bit for the serious class imbalances caused by upkeep (see the numbers above).
Depends on what you call a "realistic equipment"
On my cavalry character I use Rabati, Sarranid Leather armor, Leather gloves, sarranid leather boots
with a Arabian arming sword, round cavalry shield and a heavy lance. And a courser, sometimes Sarranid warhorse, or arabian is it called now?
And it goes great on that character. income is no real issue.
When it comes to infantry is the same deal. Why do you believe full plate with Flameberge or whatever is a must?
We can see ninjas and other characters using leather & cheap mail doing fine.
-
And another one completely misses the point.
Nobody's contesting the fact that it's entirely possible to turn a profit playing as infantry, and even cav. I know I do. But for every 10k my infantryman earns in his heavy mail, my lightly armoured archer earns 20k. That's the general case of affairs across the board, and you'd have to be an idiot to deny it.
If this discussion goes on any further, I'll split it into a separate thread.
Edit: done and done. Debate to your hearts' content. :P
-
Depends on what you call a "realistic equipment"
On my cavalry character I use Rabati, Sarranid Leather armor, Leather gloves, sarranid leather boots
with a Arabian arming sword, round cavalry shield and a heavy lance. And a courser, sometimes Sarranid warhorse, or arabian is it called now?
And it goes great on that character. income is no real issue.
When it comes to infantry is the same deal. Why do you believe full plate with Flameberge or whatever is a must?
We can see ninjas and other characters using leather & cheap mail doing fine.
Well, you can't use the JetPony with decent armor. It makes up for it anyway as it enables any noob to avoid everything, but it's cost is higher than a complete archer set lol (21982 gold). My example build is a 1h cav, that had to be also usable as a footman. So he got a medium armor. I can't afford anything higher anyway. And please correct your post, I never spoke about plate or flamberge or anything in that price category.
You should watch the few ninja clan members still playing more. They don't do fine when they can't backstab. They usually make up for their light armor with excellent blocking. A guy in heavier armor can also block very well. But ninjas are fucked up when it comes to ranged threats.
-
Archers pay less upkeep, it's like this since the begining of upkeep, it was the first whine of melee guys...
To the OP, ofc everybody would like to transfer gold, equip and xp between alt, before retirement ppl wanted this to create a new build with some starting gear, now that we have to choose a main char, ppl want this to transfer all their gold and equip to keep only one char and to do trading, i guess it's too easy...
-
Blondin: unfortunately I can't split your one post into two. You can do it yourself if you like. :)
-
Okin, you made me wanna create an archer when I retire :lol:
-
It's simpler to just raise the arrows and bows costs instead of having different upkeep based on classes. :?
-
It's simpler to just raise the arrows and bows costs instead of having different upkeep based on classes. :?
The thing is, if you do that, you risk killing armoured archery as a class. Top bow and arrows with mail could easily outstrip heavy cav in cost if you tried to balance light archers vs infantry players. It doesn't make a lot of sense.
-
The thing is, if you do that, you risk killing armoured archery as a class. Top bow and arrows with mail could easily outstrip heavy cav in cost if you tried to balance light archers vs infantry players. It doesn't make a lot of sense.
Maybe we are trying to give sense to something that can't have. *hint*... *hint*... upkeep...
Besides, In 3 months I saw one and only one armoured archer. And that was Coldblood Revenant the bloody full str/PD archer. I think he changed char or stopped playing with the most recent patch.
-
Edit: done and done. Debate to your hearts' content. :P
Thanks.
Well, you can't use the JetPony with decent armor. It makes up for it anyway as it enables any noob to avoid everything, but it's cost is higher than a complete archer set lol (21982 gold). My example build is a 1h cav, that had to be also usable as a footman. So he got a medium armor. I can't afford anything higher anyway. And please correct your post, I never spoke about plate or flamberge or anything in that price category.
You should watch the few ninja clan members still playing more. They don't do fine when they can't backstab. They usually make up for their light armor with excellent blocking. A guy in heavier armor can also block very well. But ninjas are fucked up when it comes to ranged threats.
Sorry but by "you" I did not mean really you.
I meant people overall that believes having full plate and a high-end weapon is a must for a infantry otherwise your dead.
I know that not all ninja members are the best. I'm just saying there exist people that can do fine without any heavy gear. And some of them happened to be ninjas(or you notice them the best, isn't that irony since they are supposed to be ninjas?).
For example we have all seen Poop, Polepoop that is, (I believe it was him atleast) sometimes running around naked and still do great. And he's not alone at that.
I'm just saying that just because you're a infantry or cav does not mean you are forced to wear high-end gear just to become decent/good.
-
Archers make more money then the majority of other play styles assuming you are not one of those dubious players that wear havy armour and thus shoot themselves in the foot and in the face with thw wpf penalties...
I hate saying things like this, but anyone who says otherwise has never played an archer...
/discussion
-
Erm.
I don't see a problem? Archers have fairly expensive stuff - It's hard to get into archery, takes a bit (For your first go around things, at least.) and it only gets particularly accurate later.
I'm swimming in money in my AGI two hander yet I don't see anyone whining about that - I simply don't have much in the way of equipment, armor-wise.
Calvary and Heavy armor people cost more to stay around... And that's fine, isn't it? What're you whining about? Are you saying having several extra hits should cost less gold?
-
I make more money on my polearm character than my archer, easily. But I also prefer not to wear any armor that weighs more than 5 pounds the majority of the time.
-
When will people realize that some setups are supposed to be unsustainable. This includes armored archers, tin cans in general and heavy cavalry. Archers benefit much less from armor, so they tend to have lower upkeep costs, considering armor is usually the most expensive section of the upkeep bill (head+body+legs+gloves). So what if they make more money? The point is that they do not use the heavy equipment. If they did, they will not be making this much money - balance accomplished. What is not fair here?
If you could transfer money from your archer alt to your infantry it makes zero difference - except for the initial time if your archer has hoard a huge sum. After that, you get money according to the time you spent in the game and the equipment you used on all your character combined. It does not matter if your "cheap" set up is an archer, or a guy in a pajama and a torch. The appearance of heavy setups is limited in the exact same way. Only difference is that your toons share a purse.
-
When will people realize that some setups are supposed to be unsustainable. This includes armored archers, tin cans in general and heavy cavalry. Archers benefit much less from armor, so they tend to have lower upkeep costs, considering armor is usually the most expensive section of the upkeep bill (head+body+legs+gloves). So what if they make more money? The point is that they do not use the heavy equipment. If they did, they will not be making this much money - balance accomplished. What is not fair here?
If you could transfer money from your archer alt to your infantry it makes zero difference - except for the initial time if your archer has hoard a huge sum. After that, you get money according to the time you spent in the game and the equipment you used on all your character combined. It does not matter if your "cheap" set up is an archer, or a guy in a pajama and a torch. The appearance of heavy setups is limited in the exact same way. Only difference is that your toons share a purse.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Offcourse the archer have ligther gear makes sense but dont forgot that if people could switch gold from their archer alts to main every1 who had one will run around in full plate on their 2h/pole/1h users.. balance accomplished i dont fuckin think so m8 :wink:
-
lolwut. Being an archer doesn't make you any more gold than any one else unless you're the type of person that wears the most expensive stuff every time you play.
I see you haven't played cavalry yet
-
Which falls into the most expensive thing in that sentence.
-
Which falls into the most expensive thing in that sentence.
I'm not sure I get this and if it's even refering to my post.
-
Offcourse the archer have ligther gear makes sense but dont forgot that if people could switch gold from their archer alts to main every1 who had one will run around in full plate on their 2h/pole/1h users.. balance accomplished i dont fuckin think so m8 :wink:
Not that I'm at all for switching gold/eq between alts, but wouldn't someone have to play their archer alt to get the money to switch to their tin can armored cav main, so for every 4-5 maps on their low upkeep alt making money they're spending 1 map hemorrhaging money on their money sink main. Balance accomplished.
-
Offcourse the archer have ligther gear makes sense but dont forgot that if people could switch gold from their archer alts to main every1 who had one will run around in full plate on their 2h/pole/1h users.. balance accomplished i dont fuckin think so m8 :wink:
To run in full plate, they have to also occasionally run in tunics to keep up with the costs. Since they can only play one character at a time, it just means that the "cheap" setup periods are done as a light archer instead of a light melee. Of course not many will do this consistently because if you spend cheap time with another character you do not get XP towards retirement with your main. I see nothing wrong with this. I am most certainly will not do this - I will play what I enjoy most, not what will get me more money (what is the point in that?) and I despise archers.
-
I dont this argument.
Archers may very well earn more money, but most of the stuff we can buy isn't really that useful to us. Heavy armor messes up our accuracy (I've not seen a dedicated archer in full plate), melee weapons are generally a last resort anyway. Archers will still generally get murdered by melee characters pretty easily.
We may earn more money, but we are not as diverse. Once we get our Warbow/Longbow and a decent set of light armor then we don't really have much to spend it on. So the argument about us earning more is to be fair, a bit pointless, as we have nothing to really spend it on.
Unless you mean heirlooms, in which case sure we might get money to buy them faster, but its still the same old stuff.
-
Well if you want to make it balanced, take away the penalties to accuracy with heavy armour. Then archers wouldn't earn more money but you'd have nice armoured archers again :twisted:
It is true that archers earn far more. When I'm a foot archer I easily earn gold. It's only because I'm actually an HA that I lose it quite quickly sometimes.
-
The only benefit of a class having lower upkeep is for them to make money.
They can spend this on their classes heirlooms but if there's more money available to buy those class-specific items then the price would go up I think?
Or they could switch classes after making x amount.
Either way nothing is stopping anyone from switching to a lower upkeep class really is there?
If you really wanted class equality you could increase the upkeep of bows a lot/etc or decrease the upkeep of other weapons.
-
Well if you want to make it balanced, take away the penalties to accuracy with heavy armour. Then archers wouldn't earn more money but you'd have nice armoured archers again :twisted:
It is true that archers earn far more. When I'm a foot archer I easily earn gold. It's only because I'm actually an HA that I lose it quite quickly sometimes.
This right here. If you want to force archers to spend gold, remove the penalty for using the more expensive equipment.
If you want to penalize archers for using expensive and better armor, then deal with the fact that they will make more gold than you will.
/thread
-
This right here. If you want to force archers to spend gold, remove the penalty for using the more expensive equipment.
If you want to penalize archers for using expensive and better armor, then deal with the fact that they will make more gold than you will.
/thread
I'm not unconvinced other classes don't suffer the penalty too. I know cheapshot was complaining about not being able to wear any armor or he'll get the dreaded thrower's 'red text' warning. Other classes probably just don't care that they're missing out on wpf by wearing 80 kg of armor.
-
Fail troll is fail
-
Fail troll is fail
What?
-
I think the real reason why plate is not so common anymore is because of the WPF progress curve. It is now impossible to have 180+ wpf, so the WPF hit when using heavy armor is quite noticeable.
If it was simply upkeep, plate users would only have disappeared slowly, because some ppl have HUGE stacks of gold from before patch time that would have allowed them to largely ignore upkeep for a long while.
-
Now let's see a realistic cavalry equipment :
Courser 19818
Knightly Arming Sword 8944
Heraldic Mail with Tabard 7170
Open sallet 5645
Knightly Heather Shield 4328
Splinted Leather Greaves over mail 1817
Mail mittens 1376
An half decent cavalry loadout is 3x the total price of your archer equipment. Take a very bad horse and you can push it to 2.5x. A decent infantry loadout is roughly 2x more than the archery equivalent. When you want to survive to projectiles a little longer, you can easily add 10k.
So yes, money exchange between alts would certainly make up a little bit for the serious class imbalances caused by upkeep (see the numbers above).
My equip for main char (archer)
Warbow - 11100
Bodkin arrows - 5058
Langes messer - 7517
Wisby gauntlets - 4848
Green Tunic over Mail - 3459
Mail Chausses - 1290
Hood - 45
____________________________
33317
My equip for 2H alt
Heraldic Mail with Surcoat - 6375
Nordic Huscarl's Helmet - 2478
Wisby gauntlets - 4848
Splinted Leather Greaves over Mail - 1817
Danish Greatsword - 15922
Throwing Knives - 496
Throwing Knives - 496
_________________________
32432
My equip for Pole alt
Heraldic Mail with Surcoat - 6375
Nordic Huscarl's Helmet - 2478
Wisby gauntlets - 4848
Splinted Leather Greaves over Mail - 1817
Bec de Corbin - 9506
Throwing Knives - 496
Throwing Knives - 496
_____________________________
26016
My equip for lancer\1H
Lance - 4386
Round Cavalry Shield - 1874
Scimitar - 4394
Desert Horse - 12345
Sarranid Mail Shirt - 5823
Mail Gauntlets - 3427
Sarranid Mail Boots - 1627
Shahi - 1936
______________________________
35799
What are you talking about, mates? Are you joking?
-
Your archer is a rare hybrid using an expensive sword, and sporting a higher armor then most archers do along with a decent wpf hit, to be fair most warbow users are not going to go into battle with just 15 shots, nor are they going to take the wpf hit from all of that armor. Tobe also fair, his example cav build that he posted had a higher costing sword and a much higher costing helmet then I would use for a standard cav build meant to be sustainable.
-
You can do well, but it's a lot harder. Ninjas generally get their asses kicked in group combat, they only thrive on backstabs. Even then the ninja loadout costs the same as a fairly high-end setup for a dedicated archer with no heavy armour.
usual Ninjaeqiupment :
Katana - 9,376
Black Lamellar Vest - 3,342
Scale/Lamellar Gauntlets - 6,547
What makes 19,265 gold and up to 1k repair cost each round, if youre unlucky. As you can see, being a Ninja doesnt have to make you rich, but not even I can deny that fact that you wont loose much/any gold most likely. :wink:
-
Your archer is a rare hybrid using an expensive sword, and sporting a higher armor then most archers do along with a decent wpf hit, to be fair most warbow users are not going to go into battle with just 15 shots, nor are they going to take the wpf hit from all of that armor. Tobe also fair, his example cav build that he posted had a higher costing sword and a much higher costing helmet then I would use for a standard cav build meant to be sustainable.
Rare hybrid? I suggest you are playing on NA servers?
Expensive sword? Used Tears prepatch. Tears was expensive. And now I need weapon for my 60 wpf in 2H.
Sporting a higher armor then most archers You mean - low level archers? Or suiciders that preferred to be oneshotted\onehitted\onebumped?
Well. I have another set for sieges
Strongbow - 7896
Bodkin arrows - 5058
Bodkin arrows - 5058
Langes messer - 7517
Mail gauntlets - 3427
Studded Leather Coat - 2679
Rus Cavalry Boots - 412
Hood - 45
___________________________
32092
Or standart Open field set
War Bow - 11100
Bodkin arrows - 5058
Bodkin arrows - 5058
Hammer - 589
Mail gauntlets - 3427
Green Tunic over Mail - 3459
Rus Cavalry Boots - 412
Hood - 45
___________________________
29148
Just for fun - maximal infantry loadout
Black Armor - 34239
Heavy Gauntlets - 16303
Black Greaves - 4627
Armet - 9754
Danish Greatsword - 15922
Crossbow - 10474
Steel Bolts - 2563
_____________________________
90882
Now I know Kafein's dreambuild:)
-
Ive never seen many archers that wear that much armour wit that expemsive sword.Most that i see wear low lvl armour like leather or gambesons.
-
Ive never seen many archers that wear that much armour wit that expemsive sword.Most that i see wear low lvl armour like leather or gambesons.
Thats mostly because archers get punished more for wearing heavy armor (one of the patches pre-January), its not that archers might not want to wear medium to heavy armor like everyone else and watch themselves lose gold, its that we can't, we get a much bigger wpf penalty than other classes if we do so. So if any melee classes wore the same light armors that archers are forced to wear they would be making gold regularly too. (On my melee alts, I never wear body armor greater than 15.5 lb, usually under 10 lbs and find never have issues making plenty of gold, most of them have less upkeep than my archer because similar armor, 1 weapon (<10K) which is cheaper than a strong bow + 2 sets of arrows+melee weapon(~21,500)).
Oh and my outfit:
Cavalry Robe (red): 3,582
Felt hat (red): 32
Rus Cavalry Boots (red): 412
Mail Gauntlets: 3,427
Fighting Axe: 3,375
Strong Bow: 7,896
Bodkin Arrows: 5,058
Bodkin Arrows: 5,058
Total: 28,840
Anything x2 multiplier or higher am making money. Losing only a little at x1. Used to be less, but pretty much every patch increases the prices of bows and arrows. (18,000 alone for a strong bow + 2 sets of bodkins running around naked)
-
New Outfit:
Warbow (11,100)
Hammer (589)
2X Arrows (322)
Felt Cap (23)
Tribal Warrior Outfit (1,569)
Leather Gloves (289)
Wrapping Boots (1)
Total: 13,893
Old Outfit:
Warbow (11,100)
Hatchet (65)
2X Bodkin Arrows (10,116)
Felt Cap (23)
Tribal Warrior Outfit (1,569)
Red Wisby Gauntlets (4,848)
Nomad Boots (236)
Total: 27,957
-
New Outfit:
Warbow (11,100)
Hammer (589)
2X Arrows (322)
Felt Cap (23)
Tribal Warrior Outfit (1,569)
Leather Gloves (289)
Wrapping Boots (1)
Total: 13,893
Old Outfit:
Warbow (11,100)
Hatchet (65)
2X Bodkin Arrows (10,116)
Felt Cap (23)
Tribal Warrior Outfit (1,569)
Red Wisby Gauntlets (4,848)
Nomad Boots (236)
Total: 27,957
Why the normal arrows if you are using 2 sets?? Do you reguarly go through more than 30 arrows that you need 48 at the cost of 4 damage (6 damage with 6 powerdraw)? Thats where you are really going cheap though where you have 10K less in equipment costs. Plus your setup with the red wisby gauntlets still was under 7.5 with 2x weight calculated in for gauntlets so no impact on wpf, why switch? Trying to save money? The old outfit seemed in line with most archers upkeep cost.
-
Yup, old outfit was actually rather good besides the Hatchet thing (I like the hammer more now).
The change in gear was due to me trying to increase my speed and milk my athletics further after being caught by several people in a row (now I can barely run fast enough to turn shoot run and repeat, or outrun the average ninja-esque blitzer and get back to the safety of my squadmates, though I do also have one more athletics then I used to as well). I am considering going back but I am still tough enough to survive many shots, so if I do switch back I may grab the gauntlets and just ditch the boots (I rarely, very rarely, get shot in the foot when playing my Archer).
The arrows are because with my bodkins I was two-shotting my average opponent, and now switching to arrows I am still two-shotting my average opponent. I still bring down coursers in an average of two to three shots (or one if the lunatic is running fast enough right towards me), so the extra 60% increase in ammunition is pleasing me greatly.
Also I have picked up a few tricks from a few clan mates on making long distance shots easier, so I find that I am sniping far more often then usual, and providing "harassing/suppression" fire more then I usually do.
If I am not playing on a larger server pop', I do admit that I often swap out for Bodkins.
I do, however, also admit that now I need an average of four arrows to take out Transitional targets, where as I used to only need three. But since I am getting better with headshots, I find that I don't really care.
EDIT: The Old outfit is very much in line with the typical warbow user for upkeep costs, I do agree. Oh, and I do get a perverse pleasure in knowing that the average archer can not use my arrows without triggering the "reset to 1" glitch when sniping back at me.
-
EDIT: Oh, and I do get a perverse pleasure in knowing that the average archer can not use my arrows without triggering the "reset to 1" glitch when sniping back at me.
Curse you, you foul brigand, I want to kill you with your own arrows.
-
I have two melee sets, a light and a plate, as do most melee. If there isn't much ranged going on, I'll more apt to wear my light set and sometimes I even switch out my helmet on my light set, simply because of long ranged archers. Also, since reaching level 32, I've started using the cavalry robe since I had extra points to spare.
Light Set
Miaodao:8376
Cavalry Robe:3582
Gilded Hourglass Gauntlets:8929
Magyar Helmet:1219
Splinted Greaves with Spurs:2728
Elite Cavalry Shield:3812
Total:28646
Plate Set
Miaodao:8376
Churburg Cuirass:24066
Gilded Hourglass Gauntlets:8929
Litchina Helm:6723
Cased Greaves:4262
Elite Cavalry Shield:3812
Total:56168
I'm a 27/12 build thus plate is the ideal set for my build. I'd love to see an archer with more than 40K upkeep for their "ideal" build. You'd be nerfing the shit out of your wpf, thus it wouldn't be "ideal". It's because of class restrictions that archers make more money on average. The total upkeep an archer can have before they lose effectiveness is rather low, there is no such thing for melee builds. Even if you're a 15/21 build, you still benefit from heavier armor far more than an archer would.
As for cavalry, there is nothing keeping them from wearing heavier gear, aside from upkeep costs. Cavalry still needs to be wearing a decent amount of armor. Just because they ride a horse and are, for the majority of the fight, not in melee, they still have to plan for melee eventually. Meaning Lancers and 1h/2h Cavalry have to be wearing armor appropriate for melee. Just because most cav or melee wear medium/light gear doesn't mean they don't gain huge benefits from heavier gear, thus heavy is ideal.
-
So, I'm not quite sure what people are trying to request. So because the "ideal" build for archers (thanks to countless nerfs) is light weight armor and they have a moderate upkeep thanks to bow + bodkin arrows being more expensive than any 1 melee weapon on par with a medium armor clad melee and a lightly armored cavalry player, what are you looking for? Bows should be expensive as horses? All ranged weapons should be as expensive as plate mail, so tin can melee players don't feel like theya re not making as much money? Not really sure what the point of the thread is, other than that cavalry players and tin cnas should be able to have their supposed "ideal" build (light cav don't use heavy armor or heavy horses, their "ideal" build is based on speed) of an armored horse or plate mail respectively and pay the same upkeep as people going with light armor that can be killed in 1 hit by their lance/greatsword, while their horses takes at least 3 hits before it goes down or they need 6-7 hits themselves to die in their plate mail.
Archers die quickly in light armor, melee people die in fewer hits in light armor, cavalry player die in less hits with light armor: the tradeoff for all of them is less upkeep. Bows+arrows or xbows+bolts are already as expensive as a mid-tier horse, what more are you looking for. That somehow you get the benefit of a horse and all its hitpoints and freedom of movement and it should be cheaper than people's melee weapon or ranged equipment or you should be able to swing a german greatsword while wearing plate mail for the same upkeep as an archer who dies in one hit? I kind of feel like this thread has gone way beyond its original point, which is that some cav guy was complaining that archer's upkeep was too low compared to other classes and they make too much money (ignoring the fact that archers can ride an expensive horse too if they just throw a few points into riding, but they choose not to, just like many choose not to wear heavy armor because of upkeep or because of maneuverbility or wpf hit or because black armored-armet people deserve to be made fun of, etc.)
-
actually, the upkeep of the top-tier arrows and the top-tier bow is just in line with the cost of a top-tier 2h sword. Mid tier horse costs more.
-
You Making fun of the armor?
-
So make any armor over 10 weight reduce effective melee wpf by 50-75%. This will make it as ineffective as an archer wearing heavier armor and force more melee into wearing lighter armor, meaning they will make tons of gold. Problem solved :wink:
-
It's a fact, not a whine.
Less armour = less upkeep, that's logical...
-
So make any armor over 10 weight reduce effective melee wpf by 50-75%. This will make it as ineffective as an archer wearing heavier armor and force more melee into wearing lighter armor, meaning they will make tons of gold. Problem solved :wink:
Thank you for posting this.
This is exactly the issue. Archers sit in the back and don't have to fear melee early in the rounds like other melee have to. Meaning you are able to be effective for the first part/end of the round with low armor, as you're not coming into contact with any enemies aside from ranged ones and the only place where armor affects you here, is as a wpf reduction. Melee can't fight unless they're in melee, they can't be effective unless they're sticking their neck out there. So to be effective for the same duration as a ranged player would be, they'd have to go into melee starting from the beginning of the round and hack their way to the end. To do this even remotely well, consistently, you can't be wearing light armor. There is a direct limitation on the effectiveness of a melee player in battle/siege and it's called armor.
I'd almost go so far as to say that plate is a must for any melee that isn't an athletics build and is serious about maximizing their effectiveness in battle, but I know no one wants to hear about plate when it could seem like I'm suggesting to remove upkeep completely(I'm not). How often do melee wear light armor in scrims or tournaments if they don't have to? There's a reason for this and it's not aesthetics.
Kesh: Personally, I'm not really suggesting any specific changes need to be done. What I am doing, is trying to help draw light on the underlying reasons that upkeep for different classes, is currently the way it is. It's a problem that should be looked into. I've seen a increase in naked melee since the market came out and it sucks when they're on your team because they're essentially useless. The current upkeep system rewards naked melee more than the ones doing damage and getting kills.
-
The current upkeep system rewards naked melee more than the ones doing damage and getting kills.
That's a gold/reward issue, not an upkeep one :idea:
-
Cant this be fixed by reducing the price of armor? archers cant wear it anyway, so this will mainly have the effect of making melee chars less expensive to play.
-
Cant this be fixed by reducing the price of armor? archers cant wear it anyway, so this will mainly have the effect of making melee chars less expensive to play.
No. That's a one-off price and won't affect the hundreds of veterans who already have gear.
-
Can't the upkeep % be raised just for bows and arrows, sinse they usually don't use any heavy armour or expensive melee weapon these days.
-
Can't the upkeep % be raised just for bows and arrows, sinse they usually don't use any heavy armour or expensive melee weapon these days.
They were raised, we only fall behind a few thousand in total gear, less if using the one slot strongbow.
Things are decently close now. Bodkins for example or about twice what they used to cost, and warbows 30% higher, etc
-
Can't the upkeep % be raised just for bows and arrows, sinse they usually don't use any heavy armour or expensive melee weapon these days.
I use Long Espada Esplanada and on short maps I will wear Sarranid Guard or Tunic over mail. I am making money, but at a very slow rate. All of that coin will be going away once I retire again as a horse archer and have to pay upkeep on THAT very expensive little item.
This constant attack against archers is getting ridiculous. You figure you can't get any further nerf on the equipment itself, so NOW you want to make it so that archers are forced to use a nomad bow and arrows half the time so that they can use their warbow and bodkins the other half, all the while wearing paper armor. As for Horse Archers? Gone.
-
As for Horse Archers? Gone.
Hooray!
Oh wait...
-
If a player chooses to play a build that forces him to use lighter armor (which makes him vulnerable to ranged and melee) why should we penalize him in gold? I have to say that when i pull out a sword and insta-kill most archers while leveling and only at power strike 2-3 there is a huge tradeoff they're making.
This whole issue seems a lot like "Some is playing the game differently than me and gaining different benefits i could have if i only chose to mimick their style. I do not wish to mimick their style so i want external forces to remove his benefit." This is not the way to a long lasting game with a solid community, it's the way toward a dying game with a niche community.
-
If a player chooses to play a build that forces him to use lighter armor (which makes him vulnerable to ranged and melee) why should we penalize him in gold? I have to say that when i pull out a sword and insta-kill most archers while leveling and only at power strike 2-3 there is a huge tradeoff they're making.
This whole issue seems a lot like "Some is playing the game differently than me and gaining different benefits i could have if i only chose to mimick their style. I do not wish to mimick their style so i want external forces to remove his benefit." This is not the way to a long lasting game with a solid community, it's the way toward a dying game with a niche community.
Archers gets benefit of easy kills at range, why should they pay less gold for upkeep than harder to play classes that have lower power level ?
-
Here's my build:
HA:
Masterwork Strongbow - 7896
Bodkin Arrows - 2529
Bodkin Arrows - 2529
Bodkin Arrows - 2529
Well Bread Courser - 14864
Steppe Armour - 98
Nomad Boots - 118
Leather Gloves - 145
Ocassionally I'll trade out a set of bodkins for a Long Espada at - 5217
That totals a build worth - 30708 to 33396
Please don't make me more expensive :(
Archers already pay shit loads of gold on bows and arrows. As an HA I don't earn much money unless I have at least a x3, often a x4 or x5 depending on my horse upkeep and time of rounds. We die easily to absoloutely anything that hits us. That's a trade off that I think is acceptable.
And to Lech. They aren't easy kills at range. Since the increased arc of arrows and nerf of damage it's not that easy to kill anything. A lot of what we do is softening up the enemy for you melee builds. Unless we get a decent head shot or someone has no armour. Archers have already been nerfed a lot the past few patches. Don't make it worse just because you aren't happy that you chose a build that benefits from heavy armour. If you don't like it, become an ATH build and rely on skill and speed rather than armour to absorb blows.
-
Wow, you pay nearly nothing for your gear :rolleyes: Bows and arrows are steal, i pay more for my sword and spear. (besides, you pay more, courser is 19k).
-
Here's my build:
HA:
Masterwork Strongbow - 7896
Bodkin Arrows - 2529
Bodkin Arrows - 2529
Bodkin Arrows - 2529
Well Bread Courser - 14864
Steppe Armour - 98
Nomad Boots - 118
Leather Gloves - 145
Ocassionally I'll trade out a set of bodkins for a Long Espada at - 5217
That totals a build worth - 30708 to 33396
Please don't make me more expensive :(
Archers already pay shit loads of gold on bows and arrows. As an HA I don't earn much money unless I have at least a x3, often a x4 or x5 depending on my horse upkeep and time of rounds. We die easily to absoloutely anything that hits us. That's a trade off that I think is acceptable.
And to Lech. They aren't easy kills at range. Since the increased arc of arrows and nerf of damage it's not that easy to kill anything. A lot of what we do is softening up the enemy for you melee builds. Unless we get a decent head shot or someone has no armour. Archers have already been nerfed a lot the past few patches. Don't make it worse just because you aren't happy that you chose a build that benefits from heavy armour. If you don't like it, become an ATH build and rely on skill and speed rather than armour to absorb blows.
If you take away that horse of yours the upkeep is halved.
-
Yes but I use a strongbow. Most archers use either Warbow or Longbow. Those are pricey. Most 2h weapons do a lot more damage than a bow. So I'd say it is fair that they are more expensive.
It comes back to build...I'm a HA. I designed my build that way, I chose to take an expensive path. You chose to take an expensive path to. You knew that it would be expensive. Archers know that their's is cheaper. But there are few archers that get the same KD ratio as a 2h :wink:
-
Cant this be fixed by reducing the price of armor? archers cant wear it anyway, so this will mainly have the effect of making melee chars less expensive to play.
No. That's a one-off price and won't affect the hundreds of veterans who already have gear.
If the price is reduced the upkeep is also reduced... and balancing the upkeep is the purpose of this topic.
Another thing, Overdriven I think you got some of the prices there wrong. Here are the correct ones. (atleast for non-heirloomed items, price is atleast not reduced on heirlooms as far as I know)
Strongbow - 7896
Bodkin Arrows - 5058
Bodkin Arrows - 5058
Bodkin Arrows - 5058
Courser - 19818
Steppe Armour - 195
Nomad Boots - 236
Leather Gloves - 289
Which totals to: 43608, but without the courser its only 23790. Also remember here that if you went from bodkin arrows to barbed arrows (2 less damage, and more ammo) you would only have 17313 total.
Even with the bodkins your character has a pretty low upkeep. Also keep in mind the weapons you currently use are the most expensive weapons available to archers. If one goes for a warbow, weapon and arrows total at 1900 less than your current weapons.
-
I took the prices from my inventory. But I see they are different in the equipment list when you buy it. Might be because these are the pre-patches prices when I originally bought them?
Anyway like I said, I think the pay off is acceptable. Unless archers get head shots it's not easy to get kills. The bow damage was nerfed and so it takes a lot of arrows to take anyone down. 2H on the other hand often take only a couple of swings. Often only 1 swing if the archers have done their job. I think 2H are more effective at gaining a decent KD and so should be priced higher.
-
Archers gets benefit of easy kills at range, why should they pay less gold for upkeep than harder to play classes that have lower power level ?
So the perception is that because their kills are "easier" they should pay more. Interesting theory, but i still don't see where it stands. It is way easier for me to get a kill with a 1h sword than a polearm, yet every one of my polearms is more expensive than it's comparable rank 1her. Beyond that what makes you think archers get "easy" kills, or easier than anyone else. They have to shoot at range, account for bullet drop, deal with avoiding FF, oh and the fact that many bow do little damage to heavier armors. I suppose easy is watching a guy in full plate charge at you at a speed that is fast enough that you can't range, all while watching arrows plink off harmlessly and awaiting the one slash that will kill him in his light armor. I've seen archers, they deal with a lot of problems, same as the rest of us and make tradeoff just like any other built.
As for a question of scale, which is an easier kill. Standing across a hill and shooting down watching the arrow travel and drop, or standing in melee, taking 3 hits then swinging once and instantly killing. People seem to have very little problem with the concept that heavy armor and strength allows you to perform feats of horror, yet archers are somehow completely unreasonable because they can pick off peasants before they are cleaved in two.
I used to be really upset about 2hers because i feel their swing is a smidge too fast. I also know that 2hers have no ability do defend against ranged except awareness and cannot block more than one competent opponent at a time (can't block in 2 directions at once). Everything has a tradeoff, this game is amazing because there are multiple viable play styles.
I am really concerned that there is a popular thread here "it's not my playstyle so it's not valid and therefore is unbalanced and must be removed." Variety does nothing but make communities stronger, constant nerfs until there is one "right" build lead to dead communities with people congratulating themselves on getting rid of all the "noobs" who "played those 'easy' classes".
e: The problem you are discussing is a problem of perception, not coding. The only fix necessary is to accept that people play the game differently and that's not a bad thing. They don't need to be punished or a list of disincentives against playing "easy" classes as it is their right to play whatever they want, same as yours.
e2: Oh, and i can almost guarantee that no one picked their class because they thought it was going to make the game more challenging. Everyone picks what they think will get them the most kills/assists/whatever so when you start talking of "easy classes" keep in mind that "easy" at least in your own perception is the very reason you have the build you have.
-
Simple as it it, archers don't risk as much as melee players. And have way better reach than melee weapons. Archers and horse archers don't risk as much as melee inf and cav, yet they have cheaper gear and can perform ok in melee. It's not really fair.
Shooting is point and click, you have to account for some things but ultimately enemy can counter it just by movement and forcefield. In melee you have to do footwork, avoid enemy footwork, do correct attacks, time them right and avoid or correctly block enemy attacks. Melee is way harder than range.
I'm ok with the fact that archery and cav need to be viable. I'm not ok with current upkeep of archers and horse archers (that can play with they best loadout all the time and earn much gold).
I'd say, increase prices for bows and arrows by 40%. Archers are very powerful in the game and i see no reason why they should pay less when they are more effective in battle than infantry and cavalry respectively.
-
Simple as it it, archers don't risk as much as melee players. And have way better reach than melee weapons. Archers and horse archers don't risk as much as melee inf and cav, yet they have cheaper gear and can perform ok in melee. It's not really fair.
Shooting is point and click, you have to account for some things but ultimately enemy can counter it just by movement and forcefield. In melee you have to do footwork, avoid enemy footwork, do correct attacks, time them right and avoid or correctly block enemy attacks. Melee is way harder than range.
I'm ok with the fact that archery and cav need to be viable. I'm not ok with current upkeep of archers and horse archers (that can play with they best loadout all the time and earn much gold).
I'd say, increase prices for bows and arrows by 40%. Archers are very powerful in the game and i see no reason why they should pay less when they are more effective in battle than infantry and cavalry respectively.
Lol point and click? In melee it's essentially point and click with a few extra things to consider, the exact same things that archers have to consider. You have to constantly watch out for cav, other archers, maintain footwork to avoid enemy arrows, "do correct attacks" and time them right. Those extra things you considered for melee are the exact same things for archers. They may have better 'reach'. But it's harder to hit things, and they do much less damage than the majority of melee weapons.
Upkeep of horse archers is huge. And the reward again is far less than any other cav type. HA don't get as many kills the majority of the time as lancers and other cav types. Therefore I think the trade off is perfectly acceptable. Same goes for foot archers and melee.
If archers are 'very powerful', then 2h may as well be called superhuman.
Have you ever been an HA in the middle of a cav fight involving 10-20 cav? Hell even 5 enemy cav and it's one of the highest risk styles of play. It's very hard as HA to maintain an effective field of view and shoot other cav whilst avoiding cav. It requires a lot of practice not to have a lancer dart in from the side and catch you. It's very easy for that to happen as with HA you have to focus a lot more on a target, whilst avoiding obstacles and enemies. It requires a lot of focus.
Archers are similar. If they get caught in the fray, they are screwed. And a lot of archers do get caught.
Archers USED to be powerful pre nerf...now they are balanced and I think one of the view things in CRPG that is. Leave them be. Focus on other aspects that actually make a difference in battle than archer
upkeep.
-
Simple as it it, archers don't risk as much as melee players.
And have way better reach than melee weapons. Archers and horse archers don't risk as much as melee inf and cav, yet they have cheaper gear and can perform ok in melee. It's not really fair.
How do you figure this? With required lower armor, the lack of skillpoints to put into a sidearm in many builds, and a complete lack of a shield archers are vulnerable to pretty much every other class, including their own. I can casually put up a shield or stand behind someone with one and all but negate archer. If there are no shields and i'm being battle aware like a should my choice of high athletics means i can often dance towards them without much fear of death. If i had a low ath build i would be wearing heavy armor, the kind of which makes arrows plink off harmlessly with the accompanying head and leg gear and i wouldn't have to worry still. Archers have the least defense of any class in the game. To say they have no risk is to completely ignore their blatantly obvious downfalls.
I don't wear light armor because i like seeing the end of a round. Archers don't get that choice. I carry a shield because i like to be able to go where i please. Archers don't get that choice. I have a sidearm in a completely different weapon category (spears main/sidearm for dueling) and dozens of points to put into other skills. Archers are lucky if they get to manual block with a 1her that will get blockstunned into oblivion. The list goes on and on.
You seem to be arguing against archery from personal experience, this is fair, but again nothing made you choose a class that is weak against ranged attacks. Many builds are almost impervious to arrows, and there are only a few dedicated crossbowmen (and those take forever to reload).
Other people should be able to effectively kill you. Archers are a nice counter to 2hers who aren't paying attention or are engaging another enemy. They're a great addition to any team that has a shield wall and an enclosed space.
Please don't use game balance to solve what isn't broken, and can easily be countered by tactics. I know many of us came from Warband, as single player game in which one can be the star of the show, but this is not that game. Everyone is a member of the squad and if more people kept that in mind squaded up instead of "hero uniting" (which generally consists of running off, killing 2 peasants, dying and leaving your team down a man and down all whatever your equipment value slot is counting for, then berate the rest of the team for being bad), many of these "problem" posts we see would disappear overnight.
No unit in CRPG is a one man army, nor should he be.
e: People will mention horse archers. I'll tell you a little something about horse archers. Was on a server the other night where horse archer was demolishing our team. We beat him because instead of rushing out into an open field our entire team set up in a village with our team set up and shield wall out. We then waited for the archer to get tired. She fired a few arrows but once she realized that shield wall wasn't moving she charged into our forces and got piked the everlong hell out of. This happened every round from then on until the horse archer quit the server. Teamwork beats "broken" class yet again.