Upkeep of different classes

[Tears of Destiny]

Archers make more money then the majority of other play styles assuming you are not one of those dubious players that wear havy armour and thus shoot themselves in the foot and in the face with thw wpf penalties...

I hate saying things like this, but anyone who says otherwise has never played an archer...

/discussion

[Gamerofthegame]

Erm.

I don't see a problem? Archers have fairly expensive stuff - It's hard to get into archery, takes a bit (For your first go around things, at least.) and it only gets particularly accurate later.

I'm swimming in money in my AGI two hander yet I don't see anyone whining about that - I simply don't have much in the way of equipment, armor-wise.

Calvary and Heavy armor people cost more to stay around... And that's fine, isn't it? What're you whining about? Are you saying having several extra hits should cost less gold?

[Malaclypse]

I make more money on my polearm character than my archer, easily. But I also prefer not to wear any armor that weighs more than 5 pounds the majority of the time.

[MouthnHoof]

When will people realize that some setups are supposed to be unsustainable. This includes armored archers, tin cans in general and heavy cavalry. Archers benefit much less from armor, so they tend to have lower upkeep costs, considering armor is usually the most expensive section of the upkeep bill (head+body+legs+gloves). So what if they make more money? The point is that they do not use the heavy equipment. If they did, they will not be making this much money - balance accomplished. What is not fair here?

If you could transfer money from your archer alt to your infantry it makes zero difference - except for the initial time if your archer has hoard a huge sum. After that, you get money according to the time you spent in the game and the equipment you used on all your character combined. It does not matter if your "cheap" set up is an archer, or a guy in a pajama and a torch. The appearance of heavy setups is limited in the exact same way. Only difference is that your toons share a purse.

[Tzar]

When will people realize that some setups are supposed to be unsustainable. This includes armored archers, tin cans in general and heavy cavalry. Archers benefit much less from armor, so they tend to have lower upkeep costs, considering armor is usually the most expensive section of the upkeep bill (head+body+legs+gloves). So what if they make more money? The point is that they do not use the heavy equipment. If they did, they will not be making this much money - balance accomplished. What is not fair here?

If you could transfer money from your archer alt to your infantry it makes zero difference - except for the initial time if your archer has hoard a huge sum. After that, you get money according to the time you spent in the game and the equipment you used on all your character combined. It does not matter if your "cheap" set up is an archer, or a guy in a pajama and a torch. The appearance of heavy setups is limited in the exact same way. Only difference is that your toons share a purse.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Offcourse the archer have ligther gear makes sense but dont forgot that if people could switch gold from their archer alts to main every1 who had one will run around in full plate on their 2h/pole/1h users.. balance accomplished i dont fuckin think so m8 

[Vibe]

lolwut. Being an archer doesn't make you any more gold than any one else unless you're the type of person that wears the most expensive stuff every time you play.

I see you haven't played cavalry yet

[Gamerofthegame]

Which falls into the most expensive thing in that sentence.

[Vibe]

Which falls into the most expensive thing in that sentence.

I'm not sure I get this and if it's even refering to my post.

[Damug]

Offcourse the archer have ligther gear makes sense but dont forgot that if people could switch gold from their archer alts to main every1 who had one will run around in full plate on their 2h/pole/1h users.. balance accomplished i dont fuckin think so m8 

Not that I'm at all for switching gold/eq between alts, but wouldn't someone have to play their archer alt to get the money to switch to their tin can armored cav main, so for every 4-5 maps on their low upkeep alt making money they're spending 1 map hemorrhaging money on their money sink main.  Balance accomplished.

[MouthnHoof]

Offcourse the archer have ligther gear makes sense but dont forgot that if people could switch gold from their archer alts to main every1 who had one will run around in full plate on their 2h/pole/1h users.. balance accomplished i dont fuckin think so m8 

To run in full plate, they have to also occasionally run in tunics to keep up with the costs. Since they can only play one character at a time, it just means that the "cheap" setup periods are done as a light archer instead of a light melee. Of course not many will do this consistently because if you spend cheap time with another character you do not get XP towards retirement with your main. I see nothing wrong with this. I am most certainly will not do this - I will play what I enjoy most, not what will get me more money (what is the point in that?) and I despise archers.

[hyena]

I dont this argument.

Archers may very well earn more money, but most of the stuff we can buy isn't really that useful to us. Heavy armor messes up our accuracy (I've not seen a dedicated archer in full plate), melee weapons are generally a last resort anyway. Archers will still generally get murdered by melee characters pretty easily.

We may earn more money, but we are not as diverse. Once we get our Warbow/Longbow and a decent set of light armor then we don't really have much to spend it on. So the argument about us earning more is to be fair, a bit pointless, as we have nothing to really spend it on.

Unless you mean heirlooms, in which case sure we might get money to buy them faster, but its still the same old stuff.

[Overdriven]

Well if you want to make it balanced, take away the penalties to accuracy with heavy armour. Then archers wouldn't earn more money but you'd have nice armoured archers again

It is true that archers earn far more. When I'm a foot archer I easily earn gold. It's only because I'm actually an HA that I lose it quite quickly sometimes.

[RandomDude]

The only benefit of a class having lower upkeep is for them to make money.

They can spend this on their classes heirlooms but if there's more money available to buy those class-specific items then the price would go up I think?

Or they could switch classes after making x amount.

Either way nothing is stopping anyone from switching to a lower upkeep class really is there?

If you really wanted class equality you could increase the upkeep of bows a lot/etc or decrease the upkeep of other weapons.

[Rumblood]

Well if you want to make it balanced, take away the penalties to accuracy with heavy armour. Then archers wouldn't earn more money but you'd have nice armoured archers again

It is true that archers earn far more. When I'm a foot archer I easily earn gold. It's only because I'm actually an HA that I lose it quite quickly sometimes.

This right here. If you want to force archers to spend gold, remove the penalty for using the more expensive equipment.
If you want to penalize archers for using expensive and better armor, then deal with the fact that they will make more gold than you will.

/thread

[Damug]

This right here. If you want to force archers to spend gold, remove the penalty for using the more expensive equipment.
If you want to penalize archers for using expensive and better armor, then deal with the fact that they will make more gold than you will.

/thread

I'm not unconvinced other classes don't suffer the penalty too.  I know cheapshot was complaining about not being able to wear any armor or he'll get the dreaded thrower's 'red text' warning.  Other classes probably just don't care that they're missing out on wpf by wearing 80 kg of armor.