Make prices of weapons, armor a factor the latest market prices.

[San]

You can't double hit easily with a 1h unless you're moving away from the opponent's swing or have an absurdly fast (103+) speed weapon, otherwise it's a mistake on your opponent's part or high ping.

[Joker86]

Perhaps then it should be based on popularity.. The point is anyhow to give weapons, armors, perhaps even bows, arrows and horses a price that reflects their effectiveness. A system to automatically balance gear according to current metagame.

While I appreciate the attempt, I fear the idea will bring a lot of problems. I wrote a rather long post about various problem with such a dynamic system, with all the unfair aspects and so on, but I deleted it. (Rejoice!).

I think the basic problem can be described as following: prices don't balance weapons. Balance is completely unaffected by its price when swung, only when purchased or at the end of the round when all enemies are dead the price kicks in.

Your suggestion doesn't balance anything, it just influences the CHOICE of players in a bad way, speak: limits. I wouldn't want to get punished for using my favourite weapon, because other players decide the same way. It's not like I look what the others use and then decide that what most people use must be the best. I don't think "Oh! I must not copy the others!", I rather think "Fuck! All the others copy me!". People would not change the weapon they use, as it is the game element you "feel" the most. You will rather reduce your armor. Which is nothing beneficial, I would say, because I am for buffing armours, and a general armor reduction is not what I'd like to see.

And you completely forget the item variety itself. If you want to be pikeman there are only two viable weapons. If you want to be crushthrough infantry, there are three weapons. If you want to be two hand or one hand, there is a bazillion of items, and even if we agree that the low and mid tier items are not really a viable choice on long term, there are still usually 5-10 weapons to choose from. Now if we say that there should be 1/3 of the team infantry, 1/3 cavalry and 1/3 archers, we have 1/3 of all players who have to share:

light lance + lance + heavy lance + jousting lance...

rus bow + horn bow + long bow...

Danish greatsword, German greatword, Flamberge, Sword of War, Longsword, German Poleaxe, Poleaxe, Elegant Poleaxe, Great long axe, great long bardiche, Long espada eslavona, military pick, fighting pick, langes Messer.... etc. pp.

In short: the items diversity does NOT represent the intended class diversity.


So: you have my "no", Thomek.

[Joker86]

Seperate post:

My idea basically consists of rewarding players at the end of a round for playing a rare class on the server with some extra XP. The more of your class you have, the less XP you get.

It works like this:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


An XP pool is being created, and its size is depending on the amount of players on the server.



visitors can't see pics , please register or login


This XP pool is divided into the different weapon proficiencies, according to the distribution the developers desire. My percentages are just an example.



visitors can't see pics , please register or login


According to the amount of WPP (weapon proficiencies points) spent into the different proficiencies, players get budget points. (due to the non linear WPF gain hybrids would have an advantage if you used the WPF instead of WPP). You can get budget points in as many WPFs as you whish, of course.



visitors can't see pics , please register or login


The budget points get added, and then they get compared to the percentage of the combined XP for their corresponding WPF. The more players use a certain weapon, the higher will be the amount of budget points for this weapon class.



visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Now every budget point gets an XP value, which is calculated by the data above.



visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Finally the players receive XP according to their WPF.


As you can see, our archer, who spent everything (= 100% of his WPP) into the archery WPF, gets only 300 XP, because there are so many other archers and thus there were a lot of budget points to distribute the XP to. Next to the fact that archers get only 12% of the combined XP anyway.

But our thrower/one handed hybrid gets a lot more, because he is using weapons that are rather uncommon on the server. In fact he is rewarded for adding variety. Thats why he gets more than seven times as much as the archer.

You can even extend this system to gold (mean that you can have better equipment if you have little or no fellow class players) or the breaking chance (same effect).

The advantage of this system is that overused classes are made less attractive without lowering their efficiency in battle.

And of course it would work equally well (or even better) if you did the calculation for each team seperatedly, instead of the entire server.


I hope my pictures will lead to some replies, as I spent almost an hour in MS Paint 

____________________________________________

Note that my idea rewards instead of punishing, and that it i not affecting your effectivity at all, only the speed of your progress. You don't have to downgrade your armor or experience similar backhits.

[Phew]

Note that my idea rewards instead of punishing, and that it i not affecting your effectivity at all, only the speed of your progress. You don't have to downgrade your armor or experience similar backhits.

Implement this, and be prepared for the influx or horse throwers (aka javalry). Which would be hilarious, because it is a truly awful class.

[Joker86]

That's not the worst effect. If people want to farm XP to gain heirlooms faster, I think it is valid to have them play crappy or unpopular classes. That way their greed has a beneficial effect on the team, as they at least raise variety.