Overpriced Melee Weapons

[Grumbs]

There seem to be a lot of weapons that have randomly high price tags that don't represent any real advantage in their stats or usefulness.

All the poleaxes but especially Elegant Poleaxe - These have better stabs than normal axes but lose out on speed and swing damage. They are balanced with the other axes
1 handers over 8k should be a couple grand cheaper. The reach is nice but I feel they are balanced stat wise with the other swords. Except Arabian Cav Sword, maybe that just needs a nerf to damage
Flamberge - Nice right swing and damage but only the right swing is a 2 hand animation. Its balanced with other swords because of inferior pole animations and speed.
Great Long Axe - Either make Long Bardiche and Long Axe more expensive or make this cheaper. They are all balanced stat wise. Same with GLB
German/Danish - they aren't better than the cheaper great swords like Highland Claymore or even the Longsword

[Angantyr]

Yes, for example the bardiche is easily the equal of the poleaxes but for half the price. The model and 'historical reenactment' is the only reason I use poleaxes instead, but double upkeep is stretching it.

[Grumbs]

Forgot to mention as well that since the 2 hand axes were buffed the more expensive polearm axes like GLA got shafted quite a bit in upkeep cost.

[Tydeus]

I've personally brought up all of the cases listed in the OP, and I know others have mentioned things as well, although no formal proposal has been made yet. I was wanting to script a minor change to the upkeep formula that would provide upkeep discounts for taking additional melee weapons, which is why I held off, but really, there's no reason why these can't be addressed prior to that(if it ever even happens). So, sure.

[Angantyr]

That's great, Tydeus. As part of a historical polearm outfit goes a reliable sidearm, but in cRPG there's little incentive as most weapons are so versatile you never really need to use it (would love to see this addressed in Melee..), nor is it really feasible with the substantial added upkeep.

[Tydeus]

That's great, Tydeus. As part of a historical polearm outfit goes a reliable sidearm, but in cRPG there's little incentive as most weapons are so versatile you never really need to use it (would love to see this addressed in Melee..), nor is it really feasible with the substantial added upkeep.

1hers actually have a lot to gain by doing this, especially if they only have 6 or lower PS. But your statement is particularly true with two-handers, it's basically how they're balanced in cRPG. Individual polearms aren't so versatile, I believe, to not make use of this. On the contrary, I think there are several polearms that are so specialized in what they do, that they almost demand usage with another weapon, such as the bi/single-directionals.

But yes, incentivizing multiple melee weapons should be done for more than just balance, but historical accuracy and aesthetics as well.

[MURDERTRON]

I never got why new peasants spawn with 3 weapons, what a waste of upkeep.  Peasants of the world rejoice!

[Tydeus]

I never got why new peasants spawn with 3 weapons, what a waste of upkeep.  Peasants of the world rejoice!

They don't pay upkeep. 

[Rebelyell]

1hers actually have a lot to gain by doing this, especially if they only have 6 or lower PS. But your statement is particularly true with two-handers, it's basically how they're balanced in cRPG. Individual polearms aren't so versatile, I believe, to not make use of this. On the contrary, I think there are several polearms that are so specialized in what they do, that they almost demand usage with another weapon, such as the bi/single-directionals.

But yes, incentivizing multiple melee weapons should be done for more than just balance, but historical accuracy and aesthetics as well.

if we will continue to balance weapons so everything is available everywhere and every weapon is worth using 24/7 on every map

if we continue to balance niche weapons in way to make the competitive in all cases

that we will run it to that kind of problems or we will meake all weapons cost the same prize

personally i am big antifan of what you done to 2h axes some short fast polearms and some other things

[Turkhammer]

But yes, incentivizing multiple melee weapons should be done for more than just balance, but historical accuracy and aesthetics as well.

Careful Tydeus, you're getting dangerously close to a (gasp) realism argument here.

[Turkhammer]

if we will continue to balance weapons so everything is available everywhere and every weapon is worth using 24/7 on every map

if we continue to balance niche weapons in way to make the competitive in all cases

that we will run it to that kind of problems or we will meake all weapons cost the same prize

personally i am big antifan of what you done to 2h axes some short fast polearms and some other things

All ice cream should be vanilla, didn't you know?

[Kafein]

I don't think 60k gold is a good price for an item that just offers you the privilege of getting lynched by an angry mob faster than most of your team. Prices are not a function of balance and they never were.

[Grumbs]

It depends really. For cav I'd say its balance and a way to reduce the amount of items that force multiply, or are powerful in large numbers. If Plated Chargers were easily affordable cav would have a ridiculous presence on battle. You can just hold W and aim towards people while holding right mouse. 150 HP and 70 armour + easy low risk kills and thats just the horse. Dehorsed you then are a regular melee player. I'd support making cav cheaper in general but make them balanced better so they are a bit more risky to play or need to use more teamwork

The whole upkeep system to me should be replaced by simply balancing via stats and how the class force multiplies. A cav player is worth more to your team than a random melee guy, same with ranged. Reason is that Cav and Ranged aren't as capped in their effectiveness as melee because they can deal damage in difference parts of the map in short periods of time, and there is always a restriction on melee on how many can attack a single target at once, and they must always put themselves at risk in order to deal damage. Ranged and cav should really be balanced based on there being a few working together as a team rather than with upkeep high cost.

[Tydeus]

I don't think 60k gold is a good price for an item that just offers you the privilege of getting lynched by an angry mob faster than most of your team. Prices are not a function of balance and they never were.

Price isn't there to balance, it's there to dissuade overuse. That's why the price reductions being talked about in this thread are perfectly fine. They don't change balance, they only make upkeep similar to weapons that have the same effectiveness, yet have (mostly) nothing to fear from increased usage.

[Thomek]

Oh if prices really reflected use.. One could balance them against usage statistics with a simple formula.

Perhaps limiting change of 1% per week or something so not to create to much rage.

I suggested this many times before, and it would take care of a lot of 2h Kuyak heroes as well as certain types of polespammers.

The unique chars would gain the most from this, and punish minmaxers and archetypes.