two suggestions

[zagibu]

Hard requirements like slots and the current item requirements are crap. Soft requirements like weight slowing you down or slowing attack speed are/would be much better.

[Jarlek]

So you are saying that if upkeep didn't exist, you and every other player in cRPG, would ALWAYS choose a Great Maul/Pronoia Armour/Wisby Gauntlet/Mail Chausses/Barbutte combination over a combination of the Warhammer/Milanese Plate/Heavy Gauntlet/Cased Greaves/Weimar Helmet (ignoring style ofc).

Personally I at least would stop and think whether I want the 16 extra BA, 10 extra HA and 13 extra FA, or if i prefer the 12 extra damage.  It would depend on my build and style of play.  I think a lot of other people would also stop and think too, but remember the slots and item stats can always be adjusted for better balance if it turns out that everybody does go for the same option.  The whole point is that this introduces a proper trade-off system across all equipment usage. The exact balance and nature of that system once introduced can be endlessly adjusted for optimization.

Do I really have to tell you about how weight affects you in this game? Sure, for high STR builds, the heavier armour the better, but what about 15/24 builds and the like? Or those with throwing? Fuck, what about archers and crossbowmen? Most of those wouldn't be using full plate all the time is my guess, if we dropped the upkeep. Fact is, the medium to medium/heavy armours are the best overall armours. Go up to plate and they weight too much, while giving too little. Doesn't matter for people with 1 or 0 athletics or on a horse, that's true, but for most builds? Medium armour.

Besides, why the hell are you comparing an armoursetup with a Great Maul to another armour setup with a warhammer? You do know they are two very different weapons, right?

[Tomas]

Do I really have to tell you about how weight affects you in this game? Sure, for high STR builds, the heavier armour the better, but what about 15/24 builds and the like? Or those with throwing? Fuck, what about archers and crossbowmen? Most of those wouldn't be using full plate all the time is my guess, if we dropped the upkeep. Fact is, the medium to medium/heavy armours are the best overall armours. Go up to plate and they weight too much, while giving too little. Doesn't matter for people with 1 or 0 athletics or on a horse, that's true, but for most builds? Medium armour.

I know exactly what weight does.  And yes some people like lighter armour which is why i said my choice depends on build, but the people using lighter armour aren't gear crutching to the point of being OP.   The suggestion is one to limit the use of Super Heavy Armour, alongside the heaviest weapons or the heaviest horses.  We don't soft cap medium armour now so why on earth would I want to hard cap it?  Also if Heavy Armour is so crap why is it that it carries the highest upkeep, costs the most, is the armour of choice in Strat and is limited in most tournaments? 

As for only Str builds using Heavy Armour, did you never watch RandomDude play?  He used Plate and a relatively high agi build to great effect so clearly it is not as simple as you suggest.  I know others that do the same although one of them will kill me if I reveal his secret of being an agi build so I won't name names 

Hard requirements like slots and the current item requirements are crap. Soft requirements like weight slowing you down or slowing attack speed are/would be much better.

Soft caps do not work if you can circumvent them through other means.  Selling loom points, playing the market, winning rounds and valour all circumvent upkeep making it absolutely useless as a balancing mechanism.  Therefore imo a hard cap is needed.  However, if hard caps are so bad where are your threads arguing against the hard cap on weapon usage that we already have?  We have an extremely effective hard cap system there which people are generally happy with so why not extend it?

Besides, why the hell are you comparing an armour setup with a Great Maul to another armour setup with a warhammer? You do know they are two very different weapons, right?

Because both of those setups use 4 slots in my system.  How else can you compare 2 different load outs under a universal slot system?

Because that is the suggestion. Slots for everything to balance the whole equipment instead of

[Gurnisson]

Also if Heavy Armour is so crap why is it that it carries the highest upkeep, costs the most, is the armour of choice in Strat and is limited in most tournaments? 

How often do you see plate in strat? I've mostly see armors between cavalry robes and rus scale which is 0-1 slots. Transitionals and coat of plates also makes a few appearences, and should be 2 slot according to yourself. Do you really believe the plate armor deserves 3 slot? They're not better than kuyak, rus scale and brigandine. The armor is just not worth the lower speed, at all.

About using price to back up your statement. Long Espada the best 1h, Flamberge the best 2h, Arbalest the best crossbow, Elegant Poleaxe the best polearm, Throwing Lance the best throwing weapon, Steel Shield the best shield? You're having a laugh! None of those are the best of its class, most of them are below average, but every single one of them are the most expensive of its type. Highest price =\= automatically the best.

[Tomas]

How often do you see plate in strat? I've mostly see armors between cavalry robes and rus scale which is 0-1 slots. Transitionals and coat of plates also makes a few appearences, and should be 2 slot according to yourself. Do you really believe the plate armor deserves 3 slot? They're not better than kuyak, rus scale and brigandine. The armor is just not worth the lower speed, at all.

Perhaps 3 slots is overkill for plate and 2 is fine but personally i would rather leave it at 3 slots and decrease its weight to make it worth it.

[Joker86]

Tomas, you are defending yourself rather well, but it is still not enough to convince.

cRPG is about making your own build, with the stuff you prefer the most. Your suggestion does indeed limit the OP choices, but it limits choices in general. There is little to no room for interesting hybrids or something like that. You can't be a 1hd cavalry/HA hybrid for example. Not an effective one, that is, which means something if you consider how little effective such a class would be nowadays.

I honour your attempt to remove the upkeep, you see the same problem like me. Apart from the basic intention to limit the equipment the whole upkeep and multiplier system was a game design catastrophe, and it was obivous as soon as the devs released it. But all those different issues need to be fixed as a whole, you can't fix upkeep or multiplier without the other.

I also think that your intention of fixing the internal balance of crossbows ir perfectly fine, but you make actually the same mistake like the devs with the upkeep system. As the initial means of limiting the choice (= offering a drawback = paying upkeep/paying with slots) due to the means making no difference between the choices (you always pay about the same amount or can evade it with only slightly worse armour/most crossbows cost the same amount of slots) doesn't work any more, you tweak the viability to limit the choices. Which is like implementing 1.000 weapons into your game, writing it on the box, but ingame there are only 5 viable choices. Which makes the game having 5 weapons, and being much less deep than what it seems to be.

The requirements for the limiting system are...

... actually limiting the OP choices without workaround over other aspects (e.g. less armour or trading on the market)

and

... linearly shifting efficiency and "price".

[Jarlek]

I know exactly what weight does.  And yes some people like lighter armour which is why i said my choice depends on build, but the people using lighter armour aren't gear crutching to the point of being OP.   The suggestion is one to limit the use of Super Heavy Armour, alongside the heaviest weapons or the heaviest horses.  We don't soft cap medium armour now so why on earth would I want to hard cap it?  Also if Heavy Armour is so crap why is it that it carries the highest upkeep, costs the most, is the armour of choice in Strat and is limited in most tournaments? 

As for only Str builds using Heavy Armour, did you never watch RandomDude play?  He used Plate and a relatively high agi build to great effect so clearly it is not as simple as you suggest.  I know others that do the same although one of them will kill me if I reveal his secret of being an agi build so I won't name names 

I knew that Randomdude was 21/18 or 18/21. But you know what else I know? That he was way more dangerous when he used that brigandine of his instead of his plate. And gear crutching has nothing to do with how heavy your armour is. I currently have +3 Churburg and +3 coat of plates. I feel much more gear crutching with the coat of plates than with the churburg, mainly because of how non-existant the speed penalty is. Currently, the best armour class is somewhere between kuyak and coat of plates. Not the plate armours. The reason i said that plate is "only good for high STR" is because that's the only time I feel that they are too powerfull. Something most agree with me on.

Plate isn't crap. It's just not as overall good as the medium and medium/heavy armours. Limiting plate more than you would limit the medium/heavy armours is retarded and shows, yet again, that you know jack shit about this game.

Also, your argument about why it has the highest repair cost is laughable. Just read what Gurni wrote.


You know what? Let's improve your suggestion a lot. Make most plate require 3 slots, but remove 10 weight on them. Let some take 1 slot and stay the same weight.

[Tomas]

You know what? Let's improve your suggestion a lot. Make most plate require 3 slots, but remove 10 weight on them. Let some take 1 slot and stay the same weight.

Now we're getting somewhere.  I would support a 10% reduction in weight per slot for all armours which would mean...

Heavy Kuyak = 0slot = 14.1weight
Cuir Bouilli = 1 slot = 13.6weight
Siphai Yawshan = 1slot = 17.1weight
Grey Corrazina = 2slot = 16.9weight
Plate Armour = 2slot = 18.9weight
Gothic Plate = 3slot = 17.3weight
Milanese Plate = 3slot = 19.5weight

That seems pretty balanced to me.  As for placing certain armours at different slot levels, its certainly an interesting idea although i'm not sure on the balance for it.  Maybe placing the item 1 slot lower negates the reduced weight.  So 2slot Milanese Plate would be the full 27.9weight. We could even duplicate the item to give both options for players.  I think 1 slot Milanese Plate is going a bit too far though . 

You can't be a 1hd cavalry/HA hybrid for example. Not an effective one, that is, which means something if you consider how little effective such a class would be nowadays.

Rouncey + Horn Bow + Bodkins + Llamellar Vest + Cavalry Shield + Arabian Cav Sword = 4 slots
Desert Horse + Horn Bow + Bodkins + Bodkins + Llamellar Vest + Cavalry Shield + Broad Short Sword = 4 slots
Arabian + Horn Bow + Bodkins + Llamellar Vest + Cavalry Shield + Broad Short Sword = 4 slots

Think you picked a bad example there as that first option is fairly good for a HA/1H hybrid. 

[Jarlek]

Now we're getting somewhere.  I would support a 10% reduction in weight per slot for all armours which would mean...

Heavy Kuyak = 0slot = 14.1weight
Cuir Bouilli = 1 slot = 13.6weight
Siphai Yawshan = 1slot = 17.1weight
Grey Corrazina = 2slot = 16.9weight
Plate Armour = 2slot = 18.9weight
Gothic Plate = 3slot = 17.3weight
Milanese Plate = 3slot = 19.5weight

That seems pretty balanced to me.  As for placing certain armours at different slot levels, its certainly an interesting idea although i'm not sure on the balance for it.  Maybe placing the item 1 slot lower negates the reduced weight.  So 2slot Milanese Plate would be the full 27.9weight. We could even duplicate the item to give both options for players.  I think 1 slot Milanese Plate is going a bit too far though . 

This is good. What I was mainly aiming for with the "some can have different slot levels", I was mainly thinking of things like churburg and plate armour. Let the churburgs be 2 slots and reduced weight, and the plate armour be heavier, but same weight. Right now they are identical.

[Joker86]

Think you picked a bad example there as that first option is fairly good for a HA/1H hybrid.

Woops, I read like the horses cost at least 1 slot. Sorry.

But even if all classes could persist somehow. You are still putting too much of a limitation on the equipment. Especially the armour part is something which I don't understand, because if anything, I think that infantry is having too little armour, and should in general be far superior armoured than cav and archers. Far! So your suggestion goes directly against that.

And there is yet another problem I have with your system, and I mentioned it in my previous post already, but I'd like to point it out: your system for armour (and for weapons) has only three "steps", if the upkeep gets removed. There are one, two or three slot items, and that's it. So why in hell would someone use items at the bottom or the middle of a certain slot range, when they can use the top item? Yes, armour gets heavier, but I think most players agree that small amount of additional protection still makes up the really tiny malus on your speed.

Same thing applies for weapons. It's especially drastic for 1hd weapons, due to their wide range and only 1 slot difference. Why on earth would someone use any other weapon than those in the last two lines of the shop?

Of course style doesn't matter here, as it's always and exception and doesn't concern balancing matters at all.

[Tomas]

And there is yet another problem I have with your system, and I mentioned it in my previous post already, but I'd like to point it out: your system for armour (and for weapons) has only three "steps", if the upkeep gets removed. There are one, two or three slot items, and that's it. So why in hell would someone use items at the bottom or the middle of a certain slot range, when they can use the top item? Yes, armour gets heavier, but I think most players agree that small amount of additional protection still makes up the really tiny malus on your speed.

This is the real downfall of the system but there are two things that address it

1) As somebody else already suggested, this change can be completely re-balanced for use with 8 or even 12 slot limits to create more tiers as you call them

2) Then re-balance the weapons within each tier so that instead of a gradual increase in item quality, there is more of a stepped increase between the tiers.  If done right this might allow people to pick a bit more for style and a bit less for stats.

[bruce]

I think Joker's suggestion about a set amount of gold cost you can have with you, and then having a skill you can take which increases the amount you can use (the gold pool for equipment) is better, imo.

That way cost is a factor but does not prevent you from actually using the gear you like; but at a penalty. Then the items which are "out of whack" can be balanced by adjusting price.

[Tomas]

(click to show/hide)

Cant comment on the 2nd suggestion, never use xbow.

But, some 2-hand and pole would need to take up 3 slots? Some already do xD

As for making horses or armour take up slots, not a fan of this idea. And this is coming from a heavy-armour using polearmer who only uses 2 slots anyway, so i would absolutely not be affected negatively by this (unless we're calling heraldic transitional super-heavy, 3 slots, and therefore unusable with any 2-handed or pole weapons, in which case i hate you forever cos that's the main armour people like to use to show off their clan colours). Now, as a footsoldier i am always looking for new and exciting ways to nerf cavalry xD but even i would draw the line at making the horses use up slots. As much as i hate being couched from behind or nudged mid-duel then stabbed on the floor by the brave brave cavalry boys, knights should still be able to equip a lance, a shield and a sword cos... that's what knights do.

Let's face it, if cavalry annoy you it isn't cos cav are overpowered, it's cos the game mechanics make cav extremely vulnerable if they charge in bravely like men, they're just too easy to kill if the ground troops can see them coming, so they are forced to attack from behind like scum, and any weapon seems unfair when it gets you from behind when you're fighting other people, no amount of nerf will change that. Can't believe i find myself (nearly) defending cavalry in this thread...

Still wouldn't downvote you just for expressing your opinion in an open way though, even if i disagree... What's all that about? So much infamy just for opening a discussion xD

I'm not fussed by the down votes   When was the last time you chose not to read a post hidden by down votes - I know I always read them

A gold cap on gear is a perfectly good way of limiting equipment use and I would support that instead however it would require complete re-balancing of all equipment costs.  As it stands then a limit designed to allow plated chargers and medium weapons/armour would not limit anything else.  I think the slot system would be far quicker and easier to balance which is why i suggested it and not gold.

As for skills to increase the gold cap, they can be used to increase slot caps just as easily. 

In the end though it doesn't really matter to me whether we limit by gold or slots, so long as we limit.

[BarBeQ]

Yes to xbow nerf

(click to show/hide)

coward class

No to everything else.