Upkeep of different classes

[Lech]

Wow, you pay nearly nothing for your gear Bows and arrows are steal, i pay more for my sword and spear. (besides, you pay more, courser is 19k).

[Vibe]

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.

[Overdriven]

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

[Diavolo]

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.

[Overdriven]

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.

[Ylca]

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.

[Lech]

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.

[Overdriven]

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.

[Ylca]

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.