Best Possible Compromise For Class System.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
EbdanianAdmiral

EbdanianAdmiral

Knight at Arms
Old Guard
Just unseparate the perks. Let players pick 2 perks from 1 large list instead of 1 each from 2 separate lists. This solves a ton of problems players are having with balance, and it opens up more possible combinations, which is more customization for us. It would finally allow many classes to pick both a shield and a spear at the same time. It would also instantly help Khuzait Infantry not be stuck between having no throwing spears (the thing that actually makes it a viable class) or having no melee weapon.

Its a change that would require virtually no rebalancing. The only perks in the game which conflict are the cav classes which have 2 separate horse perks. They can easily be changed without changing the class in any meaningful way. It would not change the philosophy regarding perks at all. You are still choosing 2 class based options and leaving 4 on the table. The opportunity cost and tradeoffs are still there.

It also would not conflict with Taleworlds future plans. I dont know if Taleworlds is planning to add a 3rd perk, but you can easily do so in the new system. Just add 3 more perks and an option to choose a 3rd from the large list.

I dont see a downside to this. If Taleworlds has gone over this and decided that there is one, please tell me what it is.
 
An interesting idea; problem is some of the perks clash but I guess you could have a system that prevents selection of clashing perks.

Overall I'd like to see either this. A full 3rd park slot or a much greater selection in the two existing slots.

Or... more classes. Like why only give us 7 classes per faction? Give us 10-12. SP has the options already presentable; there are tonnes of things missing that could be added.
 
AxiosXiphos said:
An interesting idea; problem is some of the perks clash but I guess you could have a system that prevents selection of clashing perks.

Overall I'd like to see either this. A full 3rd park slot or a much greater selection in the two existing slots.

Or... more classes. Like why only give us 7 classes per faction? Give us 10-12. SP has the options already presentable; there are tonnes of things missing that could be added.
Click to expand...

Which perks do you think clash?
 
EbdanianAdmiral said:
Which perks do you think clash?
Click to expand...

Well I think one of the concepts behind the class sytem is tradeoffs. You can either pick the stronger, slower bow, or the stronger, faster bow, or armor, for example.

I do fundamentally like the concept of these tradeoffs but i'm also of the mind that this could be an interesting change.

Ideally, each perk would have REAL strengths and perhaps REAL weaknesses- i.e. your choice would matter rather than being obvious or inconsequential. I think that's what they are going for, choices that matter. The problem is that many of those choices are as mentioned either inconsequential or just plain obvious. Nobody plays Berserker and picks the 2h hammer with the long sword, for example (well let's be completely honest, in a fairly competitive skirmish match very few people are using the Berserker at all for that matter). Lighter shield - does anyone pick that? In an ideal scenario, every combination would have a merit and there would be no useless options.

Clearly the perks are a work in progress, i'm sure the developers are watching high level skirmish matches (the recent tournaments and so forth), gathering data, and working from there.
 
EbdanianAdmiral said:
Which perks do you think clash?
Click to expand...

WOLFGEIST said:
Well I think one of the concepts behind the class sytem is tradeoffs. You can either pick the stronger, slower bow, or the stronger, faster bow, or armor, for example.

I do fundamentally like the concept of these tradeoffs but i'm also of the mind that this could be an interesting change.

Ideally, each perk would have REAL strengths and perhaps REAL weaknesses- i.e. your choice would matter rather than being obvious or inconsequential. I think that's what they are going for, choices that matter. The problem is that many of those choices are as mentioned either inconsequential or just plain obvious. Nobody plays Berserker and picks the 2h hammer with the long sword, for example (well let's be completely honest, in a fairly competitive skirmish match very few people are using the Berserker at all for that matter). Lighter shield - does anyone pick that? In an ideal scenario, every combination would have a merit and there would be no useless options.

Clearly the perks are a work in progress, i'm sure the developers are watching high level skirmish matches (the recent tournaments and so forth), gathering data, and working from there.
Click to expand...

This is all I mean. Some perks upgrade the sane piece of equipment in different directions. So you would need to find a resolution (which should be very simple)
 
WOLFGEIST said:
Well I think one of the concepts behind the class sytem is tradeoffs. You can either pick the stronger, slower bow, or the stronger, faster bow, or armor, for example.

I do fundamentally like the concept of these tradeoffs but i'm also of the mind that this could be an interesting change.

Ideally, each perk would have REAL strengths and perhaps REAL weaknesses- i.e. your choice would matter rather than being obvious or inconsequential. I think that's what they are going for, choices that matter. The problem is that many of those choices are as mentioned either inconsequential or just plain obvious. Nobody plays Berserker and picks the 2h hammer with the long sword, for example (well let's be completely honest, in a fairly competitive skirmish match very few people are using the Berserker at all for that matter). Lighter shield - does anyone pick that? In an ideal scenario, every combination would have a merit and there would be no useless options.

Clearly the perks are a work in progress, i'm sure the developers are watching high level skirmish matches (the recent tournaments and so forth), gathering data, and working from there.
Click to expand...

These tradoffs still exist in the new system. By picking 2 from a list of 6 you are still forgoing the other 4 choices, just like you are now. The only difference is it opens up a ton of new combinations which have no reason to not be possible other than the arbitrary splitting of the perks. Is there a reason that the aserai cav cant take both javs and a shield? Is there a reaon the clan warrior cant take both a spear and a shield? In both of these cases you are trading all of the other perks in order to have the build that you want. Thats the whole point of the class system and its not being used to its fullest extent because of a meaningless perk split.
 
EbdanianAdmiral said:
These tradoffs still exist in the new system. By picking 2 from a list of 6 you are still forgoing the other 4 choices, just like you are now. The only difference is it opens up a ton of new combinations which have no reason to not be possible other than the arbitrary splitting of the perks. Is there a reason that the aserai cav cant take both javs and a shield? Is there a reaon the clan warrior cant take both a spear and a shield? In both of these cases you are trading all of the other perks in order to have the build that you want. Thats the whole point of the class system and its not being used to its fullest extent because of a meaningless perk split.
Click to expand...
I agree. Though I'd be interested to see what TW are planning in 1.5. This does sound like a legitimate idea though.
 
EbdanianAdmiral said:
Is there a reason that the aserai cav cant take both javs and a shield? Is there a reaon the clan warrior cant take both a spear and a shield?
Click to expand...

I think so, I think the idea is that they'd be OP at least in concept. 100 gold for a spear and shield could be OP, for 100 gold you have to choose between the shield (extra defense) or spear (anti-cav).

Not saying that's a perfect example, or that a LOT of improvements couldn't be made, but that's the concept as far as I can tell.

For example when I pick a Berserker, if I could pick javelins AND the longsword I would be EXTREMELY powerful (yeah thats sarcasm).

One factor not being considered here is that there are default values for which you can opt to substitute for. With the Hunter class the default bow is the hunters bow, you can compromise by keeping this weaker bow and taking a shield, or you take a better bow. That dynamic is gone with your suggestion. Not saying that's good or bad either way, but it's a factor that you haven't accounted for. If you accounted for these "default" items, the list would be like: Hunting bow, better bow, shield, etc. Nobody would pick the weaker bow (in most cases), that's why many of the options are described as "better bow", "faster bow", "tougher horse", etc. It's supposed to give you meaningful choices with upsides and compromises.

Again, not saying it works perfectly right now but that's the idea.
 
Last edited:
WOLFGEIST said:
I think so, I think the idea is that they'd be OP at least in concept. 100 gold for a spear and shield could be OP, for 100 gold you have to choose between the shield (extra defense) or spear (anti-cav).
Click to expand...

I view a spear and shield as the bare minimum an infantry class needs for it to even be viable. If it doesnt have access to these 2 things there is no reason to take it except as an absolute last resort. By using your 2 perks on a spear and shield, you are choosing not to spend the perks on melee armor or weapons. Your class is still weaker in melee than every medium and heavy infantry in the game, and as such still works with the current balance.

WOLFGEIST said:
One factor not being considered here is that there are default values for which you can opt to substitute for. With the Hunter class the default bow is the hunters bow, you can compromise by keeping this weaker bow and taking a shield, or you take a better bow. That dynamic is gone with your suggestion. Not saying that's good or bad either way, but it's a factor that you haven't accounted for. If you accounted for these "default" items, the list would be like: Hunting bow, better bow, shield, etc. Nobody would pick the weaker bow (in most cases), that's why many of the options are described as "better bow", "faster bow", "tougher horse", etc. It's supposed to give you meaningful choices with upsides and compromises.
Click to expand...

If the perks are all actually sidegrade than this is not a problem. The issue is that some perks are worthless and some are nearly mandatory. If you are playing archer and want to spec heavily into your bow that should be a choice you are allowed to make. The tradeoff is that you are abandoning every survivability and melee upgrade instead.

In your example, taking the better bow and the shield still leaves you with no upgrades to your melee weapon or your arrows. Its not like a Hunter with a longbow and a shield would be all that good anyway. Its still very weak compared to the other factions main archer units.
 
EbdanianAdmiral said:
Id bet they do at least with the EU matches. I hope they dont think that 4 Khuzait Spearmen on Desert Outpost is actually the meta and not just some EU teams being confused.
Click to expand...

1VLGINu.png
 
That’s the Battania Wildling. It’s one of the only “medium infantry” we have right now that’s actually functional. It’s also one of the few infantry classes who cannot upgrade its armor, so whereas many classes have a perk which increases their armor by 9, the wildling is stuck at 22.
 
EbdanianAdmiral said:
That’s the Battania Wildling. It’s one of the only “medium infantry” we have right now that’s actually functional. It’s also one of the few infantry classes who cannot upgrade its armor, so whereas many classes have a perk which increases their armor by 9, the wildling is stuck at 22.
Click to expand...
**** Me! That's the wilding! I thought that was a freaking shock infantry. God damn that class is fast...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Matim
How to balance cav - roleplay edition (skirmish)
Replies
3
Views
213
Tork789
Tork789
Droob
Game Type rotation
Replies
0
Views
125
Droob
Droob
Banned for teamkilling
Replies
10
Views
510
TheHunterMikiPL
Back
Top Bottom