[HUGE PROBLEM] High-tier item balance (first post updated with suggestions!)

[okiN]

As of now, we're at 96% support on 49 votes. That makes it pretty clear that the present balance of top-tier items is universally acknowledged as terrible. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody, but does everyone generally agree with the suggestions I've made for improving the situation? Whether the answer is yes or no, please say so, we need to talk this through and make things clear for the devs so that they can finally take appropriate action.

 

[Siloer]

If armagan just can see this jeez he will go right away too work


Also another thing whats bugging me is the Spear hit directions... Like war spear It can hit just like the bardiche or any other weapon I think the spear must go one directions but Boost the thrust a bit and more speed ... Also maybe some unique spear animations??

 

[okiN]

Please, let's concentrate on one issue at a time. If you want to talk about how spears work, make another thread, or better yet, find an old one with a similar subject.

 

[Llew2]

Maybe not quite so extreme -- 38c isn't that much more damaging than a hand axe. Some of the weapons are definitely too damaging, but I think it's more important that those huge-ass, crazy long weapons with damage in the fifties and forties be made a lot slower than they are now, and a lot more expensive as well.

Yes! No more spamming with a great long axe and out-speeding my scimitar. 

It's. flipping. gay.

 

[Moss]

Does everyone generally agree with the suggestions I've made for improving the situation? Whether the answer is yes or no, please say so, we need to talk this through and make things clear for the devs so that they can finally take appropriate action.

Yep, I can't think of anything you've missed. Right now the balancing priorities are fixing two handed weapons and lowering top tier armour weights significantly. A man wearing armour should not run slower than a man running backwards.

 

[AoC]

Does everyone generally agree with the suggestions I've made for improving the situation? Whether the answer is yes or no, please say so, we need to talk this through and make things clear for the devs so that they can finally take appropriate action.

Yep, I can't think of anything you've missed. Right now the balancing priorities are fixing two handed weapons and lowering top tier armour weights significantly. A man wearing armour should not run slower than a man running backwards.

While some of those weights are bit off, it's not by large amount. What should be changed is how armour's weight affect character wearing it (it should be lowered a bit for armours, and increased for weapons). Imo, making changes that are close to real life brings balance, and it's one of such changes.

 

[Moss]

Well yeah, but that requires an over haul of the entire weight system to separate armor from weapons and shields.

Even then it wouldn't always realistically model encumbrance. Plate armour for example would weigh more than the coat of plates, but plate armours weight is better distributed (and doesn't have a skirt of chain hanging in front of the legs) and so should have less effect on the players movement speed, and thus a lower game weight.

I think it makes more sense to think of the weight as being the "Encumberance" of the item, as that's the effect it has in game, rather than real world weight.

 

[AoC]

Well yeah, but that requires an over haul of the entire weight system to separate armor from weapons and shields.

Even then it wouldn't always realistically model encumbrance. Plate armour for example would weigh more than the coat of plates, but plate armours weight is better distributed (and doesn't have a skirt of chain hanging in front of the legs) and so should have less effect on the players movement speed, and thus a lower game weight.

I think it makes more sense to think of the weight as being the "Encumberance" of the item, as that's the effect it has in game, rather than real world weight.

Well, your example is not really good one. Plate feel very similiar to coat of plates, and if anything it affect movement more (as it's less flexible in torso part) and both have good weight distribution, with mail plates could be heavier, but mail is really good armour to wear (bit heavy, but weight distribution is better). Early plates had mail too.

And Plate armour should not be in the native game anyway (it was used latter), coat of plates should be top-tier and even it should be rarely seen (it was new armour in that period).

Oh, and they should get rid of brigandine (or whatever).

 

[okiN]

You're kind of missing Moss's actual point by quibbling over details like that, though. The example does a good enough job of illustrating that you can't keep the weights as they are without making other, much more significant changes to the game's encumbrance mechanic or armor system. Sharply decreasing the weight progression strikes me a an important, fairly simple part of the solution to what is undeniably a large problem. Making weapons inordinately heavy would be no more realistic -- obviously they're nowhere near as heavy as armor, they make you tired in completely different ways.

 

[Moss]

Well, your example is not really good one. Plate feel very similiar to coat of plates, and if anything it affect movement more (as it's less flexible in torso part) and both have good weight distribution, with mail plates could be heavier, but mail is really good armour to wear (bit heavy, but weight distribution is better). Early plates had mail too.

I'm talking about the Mount & Blade coat of plates. You know, the evening gown made out of chain mail with some plates stitched on the front?

 

[AoC]

You're kind of missing Moss's actual point by quibbling over details like that, though. The example does a good enough job of illustrating that you can't keep the weights as they are without making other, much more significant changes to the game's encumbrance mechanic or armor system. Sharply decreasing the weight progression strikes me a an important, fairly simple part of the solution to what is undeniably a large problem. Making weapons inordinately heavy would be no more realistic -- obviously they're nowhere near as heavy as armor, they make you tired in completely different ways.

I agreed with the actual point like page before.

But, weapons held in hands tire more than the same amount of weight on your body - it's realistic. They ALSO tire in the other way, but that's beyond the scope of the suggestion.

I'm not talking about extreme changes to arms and armours - just to show that relation, and build up from the point.

And MnB coat of plates is not very good model, but good substitute for actual coat of plates model, but that is scope for different suggestion. There are more striking problems now.

 

[okiN]

Again, you're suggesting a basic-level change to the encumbrance system, or at least that's what it sounds like:

Make the weight of weapon in hands affect character's movememnt more and weight of armour affect character's movemement less.

And highlight weight difference between weapons more (like in real life they had different weight).

Or are you suggesting they just treat the "weight" value as a completely abstract encumbrance stat, making a mail shirt, say, 20 weight and long axe 15?

Either way, I'm not really happy with the idea. I don't think we should mess around with stuff on that kind of level until a proper stamina system is introduced. I guess you could make the weapon weights a little bit more marked, but it's more important, to my mind, to bring the armor weights much closer to each other in order to properly balance them out.

 

[Berserker Pride]

This was said in another thread but in my opinion I think that infantry should get 40 defense armor for 600 denars.  This is equal to the cost of the highest tier weapons.  It would give the player an equal choice between either the highest tier weapon or the second highest tier armor.  This would be in addition to the other tweaks to armor.  Infantry should be the toughest of all the classes.  This would really help that.

 

[okiN]

I don't entirely agree with that, either. I mean, I do agree with the idea that the best armors and horses should be something you need to earn, and not available to most players using normal gold earnings. Having a full formation of knights should be a very rare sight indeed unless the game is specifically set up to allow that. But like I said: the best armors. Right now, that means a ragged outfit or a leather jerkin. 600 for the middle armors seems too cheap, especially if you buff them at the same time. Balancing doesn't mean making it broken in the other direction.

 

[Archonsod]

A large part of the problem is the gold system. Until that's sorted out it makes no sense to really talk about improving the equipment. The issue isn't necessarily that plate armour is bad, it's that you're charged the same price ("value") irrespective of how useful it actually is to you. Horsemen pay the same for a given armour as infantry, yet because they're mounted they can ignore the weight issue for the most part. Clearly, higher protection is more valuable to the horseman whereas the infantryman has to take into account the weight. For any given armour, horsemen should be paying a premium on protection alone while infantry should see the cost mitigated due to the weight penalty. This doesn't happen though, so while you can say plate sucks for infantry because it makes them easier to hit, it's still amazing for cavalry because it makes them harder to kill.
The same applies to the (un)lucky one hit kill. I don't care if I get one shotted as a Rhodock Crossbowman, because the most I ever need to spend to have top quality equipment is 1200 Denar, which is easy enough to achieve. Infantry on the other hand lose more because their equipment is more expensive, and the same applies to cavalry with the added disadvantage of having less gold to play with due to their horse. Therefore, the problem isn't necessarily that a lucky shot can take you out, but that the effect of that lucky shot is disproportionate and highly dependent on the class you're playing. If the most you ever had to spend to max out your equipment was a mere 200 Denar above the starting rate, would you still consider it a waste of time to take the more resilient charger over the slightly faster courser?

I'd suggest :

Introduce a flat rate Denar cost. Define an item as a T1, T2, T3 etc item for each class and faction. For each rank, have a flat cost - T1 is the free stuff, T2 items cost 200 Denar, T3 400 Denar and so forth. For each piece of equipment, whether armour, horse or weapon, place it into one of the boxes according to it's relative value. Plate may be a T3 armour for infantry because of the weight problem, while for a horseman who can ignore that weight issue for the most part the self same plate is a T4 item (for infantry the T4 armour may be chain with a good protection to weight ratio). So while the tier progression for infantry is determined by protection - weight ratio, for cavalry it's protection alone.

It mitigates against the cost to benefit ratio, which I think is the main problem with taking the heavier armours. I mean I'm all for improving top quality armour because it sucks for infantry, but when cavalry put it on you need to completely re-assess it. Now you can give the infantryman a discount on his plate armour by making it T3 because the weight penalty is significant, but cavalry are still paying top dollar for it because they ignore it's main disadvantage so it's T4 for them. The other benefit in these terms is you're capping the costs. One shot kills may still hurt badly (we'd need to test to see if it was still a big issue or not), but it's no longer the case that a horseman finds it far harder to replace his equipment after getting unlucky than anyone else.

It also makes more "sense" in terms of mechanics. It costs you the same money to protect from a 40 damage weapon as it does to own a 40 damage weapon. At present weapons are considerably cheaper than armour which promotes a glass cannon approach.

The other benefit is it equalises the playing field. One issue which nobody seems to remark upon is that I can be a piss poor archer and yet, because of that 1200 Rhodock limit, still wear top tier equipment quite easily while an infantry or horseman has to work their arse off merely to reach the mid-tier. If everyone is paying a flat fee then in order to get the top quality archer equipment I have to be just as good at archery as the guy in top quality infantry gear is at melee, so you no longer get a situation where the top player of one faction is still at a disadvantage against the worst player of another faction because of the price of his equipment.

 

[AoC]

Again, you're suggesting a basic-level change to the encumbrance system, or at least that's what it sounds like:

Make the weight of weapon in hands affect character's movememnt more and weight of armour affect character's movemement less.

And highlight weight difference between weapons more (like in real life they had different weight).

Or are you suggesting they just treat the "weight" value as a completely abstract encumbrance stat, making a mail shirt, say, 20 weight and long axe 15?

Either way, I'm not really happy with the idea. I don't think we should mess around with stuff on that kind of level until a proper stamina system is introduced. I guess you could make the weapon weights a little bit more marked, but it's more important, to my mind, to bring the armor weights much closer to each other in order to properly balance them out.

Not really, weight should stay in kilos. What should change is how it affect character's movement - weapon in sheath is less heavy consuming than weapon in hand (thats why weapons should still have proper weight).

 

[HTAPAWASO]

The thing I agree with most in this thread (though I agree with most of it), is more defining tiers of weapons.

Particularly:

1. The 1-h sword tier is just silly. Why pay 400 gold more for a sword with one or two points on the free one? Make the top tier swords better, and slightly more expensive.
2. Make the top-tier bows more effective, and more expensive. (unless you are playing really badly, you always have money to burn as an archer because it's all just so cheap)
3. Make the top-tier crossbows more expensive (same as archers, see above)

But also all weapon chains, really. There's nothing wrong with having top-tier weapons being more effective than bottom-tier ones, but the cost has to match it.
To compensate for the decrease in popularity of 2hs, some shields should be made more expensive as well. Huscarl shields are pretty much bullet-proof, yet they cost only 400 gold... while armour that costs thousands is totally useless.

 

[L-J-F]

The thing I agree with most in this thread (though I agree with most of it), is more defining tiers of weapons.

Particularly:

1. The 1-h sword tier is just silly. Why pay 400 gold more for a sword with one or two points on the free one? Make the top tier swords better, and slightly more expensive.
2. Make the top-tier bows more effective, and more expensive. (unless you are playing really badly, you always have money to burn as an archer because it's all just so cheap)
3. Make the top-tier crossbows more expensive (same as archers, see above)

But also all weapon chains, really. There's nothing wrong with having top-tier weapons being more effective than bottom-tier ones, but the cost has to match it.
To compensate for the decrease in popularity of 2hs, some shields should be made more expensive as well. Huscarl shields are pretty much bullet-proof, yet they cost only 400 gold... while armour that costs thousands is totally useless.

Agreed.

 

[okiN]

Archonsod: that's a completely different way of looking at the problem, and not really one I agree with. I've said many times that I don't mind the idea of heavy armor being rare and hard to obtain. I think the game should feature such rewards that you need to work hard for. It should simply be a lot better than it is now. It's true about the horseman getting more use out of the armor, but he already has to pay for that privilege -- horses are by no means cheap. And if the rider's all-too-fragile mount is killed, he'll be slower on foot than an infantryman carrying the same weight. Similarly I've already suggested many ways to improve the balance of armor vs weapons. You think your way makes more sense, but me, I don't want to equalise the playing field. I want a man in full armor, riding a charger, to be a truly formidable foe, not a threat on the same level as a peasant in rags carrying an axe.

I do think the gold system needs changes, or at the very least more alternatives, but I don't want to involve that too heavily in solving this problem. For me, they're separate issues.

Not really, weight should stay in kilos. What should change is how it affect character's movement - weapon in sheath is less heavy consuming than weapon in hand (thats why weapons should still have proper weight).

Right, that's what I thought you were saying. So again, that would require redesigning the weight system, and I'd rather that was done along with introducing a stamina system.

The thing I agree with most in this thread (though I agree with most of it), is more defining tiers of weapons.

Particularly:

1. The 1-h sword tier is just silly. Why pay 400 gold more for a sword with one or two points on the free one? Make the top tier swords better, and slightly more expensive.
2. Make the top-tier bows more effective, and more expensive. (unless you are playing really badly, you always have money to burn as an archer because it's all just so cheap)
3. Make the top-tier crossbows more expensive (same as archers, see above)

But also all weapon chains, really. There's nothing wrong with having top-tier weapons being more effective than bottom-tier ones, but the cost has to match it.
To compensate for the decrease in popularity of 2hs, some shields should be made more expensive as well. Huscarl shields are pretty much bullet-proof, yet they cost only 400 gold... while armour that costs thousands is totally useless.

That's a very good point, I'd forgotten about shields entirely. But yes, I do think weapon tiers need rethinking overall.

 

[Archonsod]

I think the game should feature such rewards that you need to work hard for.

It still would do. If T4 equipment costs 800 Denar per pop then you're still going to need to work your arse off to afford a full deck of top quality equipment. The idea is that the T4 equipment is now superior rather than being a money sink or surpassed in utility by the T3 armour, and you're now making it a clear choice (assuming you're not uber leet enough to accumulate vast fortunes) between a T4 armour or a T4 weapon, rather than having everyone getting T4 weapons in round 1 while running around in T1 armour still.
I think this is part of the problem - it's not that T4 armour is necessarily too weak, but that it's far more expensive than it's counter. Since T4 weapons are so cheap they're prevalent long before the armour is; consider how different that armour would feel if 90% of the enemy team were wielding T1 or T2 swords rather than two handed axes or polearms. That's what this will hopefully achieve.

I don't want to equalise the playing field. I want a man in full armor, riding a charger, to be a truly formidable foe, not a threat on the same level as a peasant in rags carrying an axe.

It won't level it. What it will do is make the rarer high tier stuff actually count because you now need to work to get a T4 weapon just as much as you do to get T4 armour, and because both will be rare they'll make that much more difference in the battle. The ability to reliably shoot through shields or one shot people is now restricted to the upper tiers rather than being the norm.