The classes and the maintenance (upkeep discussion)

[Roran Hawkins]

If you guys want to troll visit another board, cause this is the wrong one. If you actually have something HELPFULL to say, do it, but when you are only trolling and acting childish, go to your spam-board, it's made for you guys anyway, why don't you use it?


I agree. My archer can play every round in his max armour, but my main cavalry character has to fight without a horse for 99% of the time, because upkeep would make me pay too much. My 2h can run around and slaughter people with his best armour, while my cavalryguy's total cost is above 100.000 while only using A DESTRIER.

I myself haven't got a decent lvl Xbow guy yet.

=> horse upkeep and Xbow upkeep are over the top

[Babelfish]

If you want to write something usefull, post the builds and the gear YOU are doing best with.

Build: 18/21 or 21/18 (both works)
Max IF, PS, ATH, and WM.


weapon: German Greatsword   11686
Body: Black Armor                      34239
Head: Armet                          9754
Hands: Hourglass Gauntlets       8929
Boots: Mail Boots                         3119

Sum: 67727

My regular gear;


Weapon: Masterwork Katana 8623 or Longsword 2562
Body: Black Lamellar Vest   1671
Head: Black Hood with Mask 23
Hands: Wisby Gauntlets   4848
Boots: Khergit Leather Boots   72

Sum: 15237

Stats difference:
Regular gear: 65 armor points
Optimal gear: 160 armor points

Regular gear is less weight tho, there are some math to be showed here (dmg ratio and ability to soak damage etc) , but i gotta go..

But in conclusion, its fine. 

[Michael]

i agree with michael

I have noticed you in game, you are a very good player.

Good to see that you are not only a very good player (some sort of a Nerd/ Freak like many others in this community), but also a very intelligent person. =)

ive also tested out a few different builds and have had almost same k/d on all of them, and some are really much cheaper than others

Like I said. Thanks for another competent statement.

and his point is that some "classes" need to have 1 light gear and 1 heavy gear to switch betwean to not constantly loose money

Exactly.
But well, wait, its more than that.
Some classes can even afford to run around with gear they shouldnt even have (archer with german greatsword/long hafted knobbed mace) and they can do that ALL THE TIME.

while other "classes" can run around in same gear all the time and be as effective as the first is with heavy gear

The last words are most important.
The average player with a dedicated horseman build (no points in athletics) cant do shit once his horse died in one or two shots. If he wants to make money, he cant even afford to carry a second weapon, because the shitty Rouncey costs already more upkeep than the entire equipment of other classes/ builds.

[Michael]

There is only one sort of people that are more annoying than stupid people: Stupid people that think they are smart.

If you get the same k/d ratio with all of those builds I would suggest you play naked, seems like there's no difference between heavily armored and not armored for you? O.o
*facepalm*

I am not responsable what you understand or may not understand.

In Lisas example, I (ME PERSONALLY) would do way better with the "cheap" gear.
I used the Black Armor, I was curious, had the cash, and wanted to try it. I had 11 athletics and still, I was so slow. I couldnt dodge arrows any more, I lost so many wpf that I couldnt use the Tears any more, I couldnt backpedal any more, and for what price? That I could take one more arrow that I would have (most likely) dodged anyway?
I dont play naked, because I dont want to die because of a friendly arrow in my back while I am fighting. With the Leather Jacket I can survive a friendly arrow. Against enemy, I have my shield, or my footwork. Thats why it works for me the way I said.

I hate doing this... responding seriously to a troll thread. I am doomed.

I would however phrase it differently, and all in all avoid the cavalry comparison as they are a very influencing factor in team wins.

Good archers, I am aware that there are only about 5 good archers in crpg, make a difference at every map in crpg.
3 of them in one team, and some half-decent melee warriors watching their back, is an almost secure victory, on every map.

Cavalry can shine on a couple of maps, when the horseman plays smart, or the enemy extremely stupid. On most maps, however, cavalry is harder to play than the infantry classes.

Bruce, I will ignore for now. He is in Gnjus squad, so he should have some good points, I dont see yet.

You, Aemaelius/ Golden Goose Guy, and Xant, have still so much to learn.

I remember your brilliant suggestions to camp the hill to defend the x1, with not one single competent archer in our ranks, but 5 archers in their top ten.
Unfortunately, enough "Lemmings" always follow "orders", even if the commander is totally incompetent.

Xant, from what I heard from Bjord, you are a decent duelist.
From what I saw from you on the battlefield, you are a horrible (battle) player. You rush, without a shield, forward, and get spammed with ranged shit.
You rush, forward, never look around and get backstabbed by cavalry.
You rush, forward, get outnumbered by a group of enemies and die.


 

[Xant]

Yeah mang, my average KDR in battle is 0.2

[Bothersome_Aldryk]

I would actually have to agree. He presented this in a rather outrageous manner, but I find it ridiculous that I can wear heavy-medium armor with 3 weapons and a shield all the time and earn money. This is hardly what upkeep should be allowing, no? I've been using my full heavy plate set just to feel like my money is being used, even though I do poorly in plate. Meanwhile, you see excellent cav like Rohypnol who have to be naked with one weapon to afford being on their horse for long. Admittedly, he uses the expensive Courser, but I still find it a bit silly how expensive they are. IMO, increase upkeep significantly on footmen and archers.

[Nemeth]

Xant is nub, don't listen to him.
Anyway, just because you do best as cav while riding top tier horse with top tier armor doesn't mean you should be able to upkeep that stuff. There is quite a few great cavalrists (Tommy comes in mind) as well as great xbowmen (DaveUKR for example) that are able to pwn your and everyone other's face and don't need to wear the best possible gear in every slot.
I'm not really sure why I'm responding seriously to this though, since the OP bares the mark of trolling all over it.

[IG_Saint]

There is only one sort of people that are more annoying than stupid people: Stupid people that think they are smart.

I completely agree with you.....Also I love how smart equals agrees with you in your mind.

As to the topic, yes there is some imbalance in regards to cost, but I don't see it as a huge problem. Cavalry is expensive for a very good reason imo. Good cavalry can make or break a team on the right map. If the map isn't suited for cavalry, just go cheap footman and build up that cash for a good map.

[[ptx]]

There is only one sort of people that are more annoying than stupid people: Stupid people that think they are smart.

My, my, didn't expect you to come to this conclusion all by yourself.
Does that mean we are done here?

[Raskolnikov]

What a load of horse shit.

First, cRPG is not about 'classes' , so your post is not off to a good start. What you have described is really just styles of play. For example: a 'Ninja' is not a class; it's just someone using a themed two-hander, a face mask and some light armour.

And the main thrust of your argument is nonsense: because you do equally well with varying 'builds' of varying price, then everyone else should to. Thus, all 'builds' - or rather the equipment they use - are more or less equal in effectiveness, but their prices are not. So you say:

"price of items should be based on the threat they are to the enemy"

But according to your example 'builds' using cheap, light armour and weapons are just as effective as expensive, heavy or high stat items.

In claiming this you're saying that having top tier weapons and armour offer the player no bonus, so they should not restricted by price - everything, essentially, should cost the same.

I'm going to call bullshit on this one. I think you're lying about your performace with cheap 'ninja' characters and the like. You're lying in the hope that you'll convince people that top tier weapons and armour don't matter, that way when the prices are reduced you can simply ride around atop a charger in your black armour 'pwning noobs' all day long.

Nice try.

[ThePoopy]

I completely agree with you.....Also I love how smart equals agrees with you in your mind.

As to the topic, yes there is some imbalance in regards to cost, but I don't see it as a huge problem. Cavalry is expensive for a very good reason imo. Good cavalry can make or break a team on the right map. If the map isn't suited for cavalry, just go cheap footman and build up that cash for a good map.

a good archer can win the game too...

[Ganon]

I was thinking oh nice a good analysis of upkeep being unfair between ranged and melee classes (melee need armor to be effective more than ranged, so they need more expensive equipment), but after reading it, i can't support the OP. Or maybe he was just trolling.

[Gorath]

Nice try but your gear loadout for the 1h/shielder is completely crap, and your ninjas have no throwing weapons.  You can't play your "elephant" anymore?  Good.  Upkeep is fine and doing it's job perfectly, especially if it pisses you off.  Go GTX already and spare us your idiocy.

[Vygar]

I like the upkeep system quite a bit as it is.  By having to watch my maintenance costs, I need to make compromises in the what gear I bring to the battlefield.  This removes the "crutch" of eventually grinding out best in slot gear and in the long run, only makes me a better player and encourages a better equipment variety out in the field.  Even with upkeep as it is, you've got a lot of room to build a good set that won't make you go broke.  In short, upkeep saved this mod for me.   

[bruce]

In all seriousness, the upkeep system was designed to prevent things like heavy cavalry or even medium-heavy cavalry (such as people on destriers with armour and so on), as well as top notch armour from being upkeepable all the time, and it suceeded in that.

Now you can afford the best armour if you're a 2h/polearm foot infantry, which makes quite a bit of sense given they're the class which needs the most armour. Horsemen can't afford a lot, which makes them more vulnerable to foot solidiers and ranged (which is good balance), neither can crossbowmen/etc. There are a few kinks which could use sorting out and a few things which could use a rebalance, but on the whole the upkeep system does a good job.

Before upkeep about a third of the population if not more were tincans, often on armoured horses, which was broken - a armoured man on a armoured horse provided you with a huge advantage, and we began to see more and more heavy cavalry (including heavy HAs) since everyone wants to play the strongest classes. On the other hand, light horses, while they can be a massive advantage, are also fragile and often end up slaughtered by ranged if they're not very careful. So it's not the default thing to gravitate to.

I've played, since the patch, light lancer (on a alt), medium-armoured crossbow/polearm hybrid, medium armoured archery/polearm hybrid, medium pure polearm (with spear and shield in addition to a normal weapon), and 2h/crossbow hybrid. I haven't found upkeep to be a problem on any of these, and found them all to yield more or less the same K/D and on the whole make money. (By medium armour, I mean heraldric mail and stuff like that)

Also I played most of my archery/polearm hybrid before the archery damage buff and found it most fun then (because agispamming whores couldn't really do a lot of damage to me, and I sure as hell could to them with my 7 PD/PS build).