Upkeep Overhaul

[Vibe]

Fight the RNG!

[Xol!]

Here are some things to consider:

Make this be based on gold ticks, and not "time spent alive" because currently, the break chance is run PER TICK, so the gold income balances out with the amount you pay in repairs.

I.E. if a round ends in 3:59 you get the 6:30 tick 6:00  tick, 5:00 tick, 4:00 tick.  Under your new system, you would pay repairs for nearly an entire minute, without the next tick in compensation.

And

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the current system does not allow an item to break more than once*under normal circumstances, nor does it roll an "extra" attempt on other items if said item is broken.  This means that, in theory, your gold upkeep is less than 0.07*0.04


I really do like this idea, however, I think that the gold/tick and upkeep costs are fairly well balanced as of now and would hate to see that be thrown off.

I'm not entirely sure where you get the 'time spent alive' thing from.  The upkeep would be evaluated on the tick the same way it is now, just at a constant value instead of using RNG. 

You are correct about the multiple breaks, I had overlooked that facet of the current system.  It could, however, be pretty easily be tweaked by adjusting the repair cost.  Say a round nets you 6 ticks (6:30, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2).  The probability of getting more than one break, right now, is about 0.0216 (1 - (.96^6 + 6*.04*.96^5)).  In a 4 tick round, it's a 0.0091.  For example, using a 30,000 gold build in this hypothetical 6 minute round, you've got an expected value of 410 gold for one break only (the current system), and you're 'saving'  45 gold per round for the value of any extra breaks (11%).  For the four tick round, it's 297 &  19 (6.4%). The devs would be able to adjust the repair cost slightly (ie, .0028 to .0025) per tick to compensate.  Or, they could give away the first tick free of repair costs, since very little combat happens during the thirty seconds anyway.

I'm putting this in the OP, thanks for catching it.

[Old_Sir_Agor]

awesome for ranged, bodkin arrows user will not pay so hard as now, ranged stay behind and ususally take no dmg so no repairs for armor, cool for me.

[RibaldRon]

I'm not entirely sure where you get the 'time spent alive' thing from.  The upkeep would be evaluated on the tick the same way it is now, just at a constant value instead of using RNG. 

Yeah re-reading it, I guess I don't either. 


Also, it would be cool if it did give you a per-tick gold comparison...

You earned 1,120 Experience
You earned 50 Gold
You spent 55 Gold

Maybe the final upkeep total message at the end, as well.


You earned 150 Gold this round
You spent 160 Gold this round


Also, I think the first tick does currently count for item break chance, because I was couched and killed, basically right after spawning/getting the first tick on a particularly cav friendly map, and had upkeep to pay when the round ended 3 mins later.

[CrazyCracka420]

Well AFAIK you still pay upkeep when dead, you have the chance on every tick.

[Spawny]

Being dead or alive has nothing to do with repairs. If you receive a tick worth of gold/exp, you have a chance to repair something that tick.
Since you still get gold/exp while being dead in battle mode, you still have a chance to pay for your gear.
This is to stop people from suicide runs and just gain gold/exp without having to pay upkeep.

[Xol!]

Also, I think the first tick does currently count for item break chance, because I was couched and killed, basically right after spawning/getting the first tick on a particularly cav friendly map, and had upkeep to pay when the round ended 3 mins later.

Yeah, right now the first tick does count for break chance.  I'm saying in the new system, perhaps they just shouldn't count it in order to make up for the extra small cost of double, triple, etc. breaks that you don't actually pay for now, but you would (kind of) be paying for in the new system.  It's not really a big deal either way.

[Sir Ryden]

I don't see any reason to not have this. It's incredibly convenient for players is what it is.

Your mom doesn't have any reason to not have this TyD3u5,  lolownedownedowneodnwoedn downeodnwoneodnowenondowenosndonweondowne

[Tanken]

I like this idea a lot. Your basically pre-paying maintenance on gear you own instead of getting whacked with gigantic fucking bills every 2-3 rounds.

[Joker86]

I fear the developers will refuse this suggestion for a good reason:

Battles would become more difficult to turn. You would have more 4:0 maps than before.

I know I know: in theory, on the paper, nothing changed. People tend to use better gear when winning, yes. But if everything would be steadier, people wouldn't be so afraid any more of using better gear on higher multipliers. They would always be able to max out the gear they can use, which is a great advantage for the team that's currently winning. With the current system many players are afraid to do so, because they know that they have x5 currently, but their armored horse takes away several thousands when breaking. So they often don't dare to switch to better equip, especially if the fights are close, which is a good thing.

It is less a question of maths, more of psychology. You know what I mean? 

[Xol!]

I fear the developers will refuse this suggestion for a good reason:
*snip*

I know exactly what you mean, but 4:0 maps come primarily from poor team balance and poor map balance.  In truth, if two teams fight eachother on a perfectly balanced playing field, with completely identical class distribution & skill at the game, the team that is willing to sink more gold for better armor and weapons should come out on top.  Otherwise, what's the point? 

If the losing team wants to win that badly, they can put on their tryhard pants like big boys and fight for it.

While I agree that yes, people will be less afraid to dance close to the edge upkeep-wise, people shouldn't have be afraid to do that with the current system either.  Over-penalizing players to the point of being scared to use expensive gear isn't fair to the players. If anything, building your gearset close to the point of sustainability should be encouraged to help curb some of the rampant inflation present in the game.

[Joker86]

While I agree that yes, people will be less afraid to dance close to the edge upkeep-wise, people shouldn't be afraid to do that with the current system either.

But I fear they are. And that's what makes only a few players change their equipment when they are winning. With your change, more of them would do so, which would result in a higher advantage for the winning team. You say yourself, players would dance close to the upkeep edge, and this edge would be x1 by default for most players. And if they don't plan on farming money, they will approach this threshold as good as possible, so if you want to try harder to win by improving your equipment, most players will come into the situation where they KNOW they will lose money the next round they try to turn the tables. With the current system they are at least encouraged to try their luck of not having the euqipment break.

That's my problem with the suggestion. My ONLY problem. I really love the idea of having a game that's not luck based, but with the current system the suggestion simply doesn't work so well, I think.

[Xol!]

But I fear they are...

Do you honestly think people are going to sacrifice their KD ratios and chances at higher experience multipliers just to farm gold?  If people are so afraid to lose gold that they refuse to wear decent gear, then they deserve to lose. 

However, you seem to be under the impression that building for a x1 means a team will not have decent gear available to them.  Even with an entire team gearing for x1, they still have more than a fighting chance if their players are skilled.  For example, let me throw out a couple of builds that would lose no money at a x1, using the 0.0025 upkeep cost suggested in the OP (ie, under 20,000 gold):

Melee:
Miaodao, Katana, Great Maul
Scimitar, Iberian Mace, Arming Sword, Military Cleaver + Elite Cav Shield, Heavy Round Shield, Plate Covered Round Shield
Long War Axe, English Bill, Long Hafted Blade
Broad Rimmed Kettle Hat
Heraldic Mail
Leather Gloves
Splinted Leather Greaves Over Mail

Cav
Lance / Military Cleaver / Heavy Bastard sword
Rouncey
Spiked Cap
Lamellar Vest
Leather Gloves
Leather Boots

Archer:
Horn bow
2x bodkins
Pickaxe
Light Leather Armor
Leather Gloves
Leather Boots

Xbow:
Crossbow
Steel Bolts
War Axe / Fauchard / Yanmaodao
Footman's helmet
Lamellar Vest
Leather Gloves
Leather Boots

Obviously these are just examples, but they demonstrate what's possible.  I think your fears are both unfounded and do not have the player-base's best interests in mind.  Realistically, map balance & team balance do and would continue to play a much greater role in determining the outcome of a round than gear selection. Gear selection would also be unlikely to fluctuate terribly from what is used currently, as many people build for personal taste over min-maxing.  Finally, even if people DID begin to design gearsets to take advantage of higher multipliers, it would only help to curb the huge amount of gold flooding the game.

[FRANK_THE_TANK]

Its not a bad idea but what would the stable cost be at x1?

And do we need different upkeep for siege?

I feel like this type of system may cost more than the current system unless the cost is brought down. Currently I get to enjoy not paying the 1k+ upkeep on my armor most rounds and I get the feeling that my current 40k build would die in a fire. I find on siege where I pay out full upkeep on all items I loose gold hand over fist, where as on battle I'm pretty stable.

[Xol!]

Stable cost at x1, with a 0.0025 repair rate per tick, would be 20,000 gold in gear.  You shouldn't need a different upkeep for siege.  It costs basically the same amount of gold as it does now, but instead of paying one big chunk of upkeep at random intervals (7% of the cost 4% of the time) you pay a small, consistent amount (0.25%) on each tick.

As for the sustainable amount in general, with the current system it's somewhere between 37k and 42k for the average player (using two different multiplier retention probability matrices & including the ~10% extra cost saved by not counting multiple breaks in a round).  For the new system, using the 0.0025 repair cost, it's somewhere between 38k and 43k.