Item balancing and additions.

[sirballington]

Weird parallels to what I saw with people's behaviour around stock options during the .com bubble. Or watching friends insist on full blue book when trading in a car.

Not sure if I'm detecting a hint of patronizing tone here, or if it's just the internet. You just described the same two values I did; the value where transaction occurs, and the "subjective" value where we/the merchant thinks it's worth.

You're saying we should lower the second value (just sell it for 3k because no merchant wants to buy it for 30k -- since they're not able to), and we're asking for the first value to be increased (by allowing a transaction to occur, whether with pure denars or through bartering). The problem with lowering the "Fair Market Value" as you call it, is that now it creates a situation where, Lordly Black Armor's "actual value" is now 3k, while lesser armors sell for equal or more. Or should all other armors' actual value be lowered too?

If a merchant, say, a bookseller, have enough items to barter, they will still barter. I can exchange 4 books worth 7k each for 1 Lordly Black Armor. Now the actual value is 30k. If there is one seller who is willing to barter it for 30k, wouldn't that also make the FMV 30k?

1) See people so fixed on FMV that they...

2) ...will actually advocating lowering the notional value of an item rather than use the field expedient of accepting less than they consider FMV to be, despite the net effect being the same.

If they accept less than they consider FMV to be, then their FMV is what they accepted. FMV is what you paid for it, because you think it's worth that much. It may start out very high, and get no offers. Then they "lower the notional value" (again, same as accepting less than their initial FMV) until it is equal the actual value, at which point a transaction occurs.

Way off-topic, so I'll refrain from further derailing it.

 

[Karl XII]

<<You're saying we should lower the second value (just sell it for 3k because no merchant wants to buy it for 30k -- since they're not able to), and we're asking for the first value to be increased (by allowing a transaction to occur, whether with pure denars or through bartering). The problem with lowering the "Fair Market Value" as you call it, is that now it creates a situation where, Lordly Black Armor's "actual value" is now 3k, while lesser armors sell for equal or more. Or should all other armors' actual value be lowered too?>>

What I'm saying is, it's found money. If you want to hang onto it to trade for books, or get back book money already spent (the book merchants hang onto cash), or use 3 or 4 sets to buy some lordly plate, fine. If you're in a bind and need to exchange it for quick cash or less valuable stuff, that's fine too. I'm honestly puzzled at people who think they should be able to realize the little number attached to it at will, and doubly puzzled at people who think the solution is to lower the number. It's only worth what you can get for it. We're not owed an ability to realize maximum value, the realizable value is (and should be) contingent upon opportunity. All it does is provide one more decision point for the player. Hang onto it in hopes of getting more, or sell quick for what you can get. Better to think of the price attached to the item as a potential maximum rather than a guaranteed amount or absolute value.

Personally, I'd like to see some variability attached to pricing overall. Some stuff is cheaper in some places, dearer in others. With an abstracted market variability overlaid on top of that. But that is the sort of campaign flavour that is certainly far down the list. If on it at all.

 

[Karl XII]

And one more thing noticed actually ON topic for the thread...

Something weird has happened to the arrows. Broadhead and Khergit arrows are +8 damage and all the rest are +2. Also the sheaf sizes have decreased. Meanwhile, pricing seems to reflect the old values.

 

[sirballington]

I feel like we're saying the same thing in very opposite ways. lol.

Hang onto it in hopes of getting more, or sell quick for what you can get. Better to think of the price attached to the item as a potential maximum rather than a guaranteed amount or absolute value.

My suggestion was because aside from books, there was no way to get more, without increasing merchant money. I know you're saying that we didn't spend any money on it, so any price we get for it is 100% profit, so it doesn't matter whether it's 3k or 30k, it's still 100% profit. And I think we just disagree on whether or not it matters. The gold digging money grubber in me thinks it does. 

All it does is provide one more decision point for the player.

And having the commissioner accept barters provides that one more decision point.

Something weird has happened to the arrows. Broadhead and Khergit arrows are +8 damage and all the rest are +2. Also the sheaf sizes have decreased. Meanwhile, pricing seems to reflect the old values.

I read somewhere that broadhead arrows (previously just the normal "Arrows") now do cutting damage, hence the increase in raw damage to compensate for armor reducing its damage, and the others are piercing. I can't seem to find where I read that though.

 

[Karl XII]

Ultimately, I reckon it's just a matter of taste. I like having an uncertainty factor. Also, having to work to get the most out of found money isn't the worst thing in the world. You get 3k for dumping it at the soonest opportunity, or you can work it to get more. I sorta like the idea of trading it in for commissioned goods, but at a steeply discounted rate. For the same reason commissions are very pricey compared to finding stuff on the market: you are paying for the convenience of not spending time and effort to find the stuff you want.

After all, I can't recall a free lunch I didn't have to pay a lot for one way or another...

 

[sirballington]

EDIT: To touch further on this all of the new items I have implemented are a bit stronger/better than native.  While trying to maintain somewhat the same prices/stats that the native weapons have.  I wanted to see how players liked the new weapons compared to native and obviously not all of the armors are balanced out yet..in fact nothing will be completely balanced until every last item is implemented.  So its frustrating at the moment with weird prices stats etc, with everything else coming into place.

For the most part the variety is good enough -- not too many, not too few. Only issue I have aside from stats which is WIP, are the flat textures of many of the OSP items, like Heavy Morning Star, or Heavy Heavy Morning Star as I'm using right now.  I'll hazard a guess that these items were initially made in order to be more clearly visible against the black background, but since the change to the white background, a darker, more "crude"/"used"/"uneven" look as in Native would not be a visual problem, no? The new round shields look very "clean", as if these shields have never seen battle.

And for something positive -- the armors are beautiful and functional. I can guess what they're made of just by looking at the meshes -- very high quality. Each armor has little imperfections that give them character -- a scratch on the crusader buckets, creases on the leather coats, little bit of what looks like rust on the mail shirts. And no silly plate bikinis -- all armors are functional and protective. Very well done. Just make the weapons as good as the armors. 

EDIT: All these talk of 0.25 is making me want to wait to start a new game. But how am I going to get my M&B fix in the meantime??

 

[Windyplains]

EDIT: All these talk of 0.25 is making me want to wait to start a new game. But how am I going to get my M&B fix in the meantime??

There will always be a "next update in the works".  It's best to simply enjoy what's out for now and help suggest where you want to see things go in the future.  It's been very rare that new versions have not been save compatible with previous ones.  The current version is save compatible back to v0.13 (released in March 2013) for instance.

 

[Slate024]

Universal Wolf's comment brought this to my attention, below is a small example of armor and helmet tiers.  Base strength requirements depending on tier, with room to move a bit since there are so many armors and helms. Civilian clothes and shirts have no requirement.  Keep in mind T5 armor doesn't mean it belongs to a T5 troop.
How does this look?  Seem fair?  Too much? Too Easy?


ARMOR TIERS
    Strength Requirements:
T5 = 25-20  T5 Plated armors.
T4 = 19-17  T4 Chain mail
T3 = 16-14  T3 Heavy leather/padded mail
T2 = 13-10  T2 Light leather
T1 = 9-5    T1 Padded/cloth

      HELM TIERS
  Strength Requirements:
T4 = 18-15  T4 Full helms
T3 = 15-12  T3 Half helms
T2 = 12-9    T2 Light helms 
T1 = 9-5      T1 Cloth helms

 

[sirballington]

I suggest 24 STR as the upper limit for T5, since most, if not all, players will have their attributes set to multiples of 3. Having a plate armor at 25 means they would have to go up to 27 (well, not have to, but very likely will). 27 seems a bit steep for the I-want-the-best-armor-but-don't-want-to-spend-all-my-points-in-STR players, e.g me *cough*. 24 seems a lot more consistent with Native that has 9 as the highest STR requirement (Plate Armor).

I remember Windy saying the assumption is that most players will have at least 12 or 15 STR, so having an armor require 13 or 16 within the same tier (presumably same-ish weight but higher armor)... or is this another one of those trade-off things?

Ranges look reasonable otherwise.

Will gauntlets be subject to the same STR requirement as body armor? No strong feelings either way.

 

[Leifdin]

It's all free money, dude. A transaction is a transaction. In economic terms, you're suffering from the "sunk cost" fallacy.

I don't care, it's still my money!

隐藏

It's not that big of  a deal, it just feels AWFUL!
(To put it into non-economical terms, I would sum it up as money I can have and money I could have one beautiful day)

Also, a couple of posts ago, you discussed the price of helmet. That is determined by quality -thickness and quality of material, whether it is tempered or not, nowadays whether it is made of one piece or two pieces and welded together, who made it(a blacksmith with a very good name can ask more) and artistic value, ornaments and such.

 

[TrolKabu]

There was the topic about arrows : http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,307386.0.html

This is something I was thinking about as well.
* Broadhead - high cutting damage, smaller quivers (20)
* Barbed - medium cutting damage, but causes a hampering effect based on location hit (less damage if its an arm, slower movement on a leg) - I'm not sure if the benefit will outweigh the performance offhand, but I'll test it out.
* Khergit - high piercing damage, smaller quivers (20)
* Bodkin - medium piercing damage, +50% damage to shields (armor doesn't have durability to concern with)
* Blunted - medium bludgeoning damage, smaller quivers (20)
* Flaming - improves damage of any arrow by a flat amount, reduces the accuracy of your shot.  This isn't an actual item you can purchase so much as an order you can give.  I am considering having a requirement added for having oil in your party's stores, but increasing the effectiveness of flaming arrows as a result.

About armors Tiers, I agree with SirBallington about the 24STR top.

 

[Leifdin]

About strength requirement, what about making some armour cheaper while requiring more strength based on the idea that they are poorly made? Or adding a modifier that would do that?

 

[Windyplains]

The lowest tier of armor should not have any requirement.  Anything less than 7 is irrelevant as every troop generally has at least this much and we don't want to force the few companions that do not to run about without any armor.  The rest of the ranges seem fine and the 24 cap sounds reasonable.

For the arrows, the first stage of that went in.  Some now hit harder with a smaller quiver compliment.  The coded effects to go with it are not yet ready.

 

[Slate024]

Will gauntlets be subject to the same STR requirement as body armor? No strong feelings either way.

Much lower, Plate mittens and Gauntlets prob around 13  15? Being a T5 gauntlet.  Share some feedback as well on the gloves as far strength requirements if someone feels different.

 

[sirballington]

About strength requirement, what about making some armour cheaper while requiring more strength based on the idea that they are poorly made? Or adding a modifier that would do that?

Aren't those then just Crude/Battered/Rusty/Cracked? 

 

[Leifdin]

I mean more significantly, like 50% price, 125% requirements.

 

[Slate024]

How does this settle for a Strength base for items? 
 

        ARMOR TIERS
  Strength Requirements:
T5 = 24-20  T5 Plated armors.
T4 = 19-17  T4 Chain mail/Lamellar
T3 = 16-13  T3 Heavy leather/padded mail
T2 = 12-10  T2 Light leather
T1 = 7-0    T1 Padded/cloth  "some requirement for padded cloth armors?"

        HELM TIERS
  Strength Requirements:
T4 = 18-15  T4 Full helms
T3 = 15-12  T3 Half helms
T2 = 12-9    T2 Light helms 
T1 = 7-0    T1 Cloth helms/hats

      GAUNTLET TIERS
  Strength Requirements:
T3 = 16-14  T3 Plate Mittens/Gauntlets
T2 = 13-11  T2 Lamellar/Scale Gauntlets
T1 = 10-0    T1 Chain Mittens/Leather Gloves


        BOOT TIERS
  Strength Rerquirements:
T3 = 16-14  T3 Iron Greaves
T2 = 13-10  T2 Chainmail Boots
T1 - 9-0    T1 Leather Boots/shoes/leggings

 

[zapbib]

Too high in my opinion. Most companions wouldnt be able to wear anything until very high level.
Plate armor isnt really that hard to wear. I understand perhaps like 18 for a plate mail, but 20-24 is just excessive. Unless your telling me that everyone and their brother is a hulking superhuman in silverstag I 'd like to be able to wear the same thing as a hight tier unit in my mid level whitout being a drooling oaf that put all his points in strenght.

And I usually do get 24 strenght in all my playthrought, It's usually mu hightest stat, I still wont get it until lvl ~30 which means a lots of hours of gameplay.

 

[sirballington]

I still wont get it until lvl ~30 which means a lots of hours of gameplay.

I think it's not unreasonable that we aren't wearing the best armors within the first 5 levels. Armor is a big deal. High armor makes you nearly invincible to arrows, and cutting weapons very weak.

Sure, plate armor is not very hard to wear, but the training required to move around in combat weighed down by 40, 50 lbs of armor (which isn't the same as carrying a 50 lb backpack) is represented by points in STR. That's how I see it (and perhaps reflected by the encumbrance formula).

One thing I like about M&B is how you start out as a nobody. Other units are either hostile to you or totally disinterested in you, until you work your way up and prove your renown. You are not the Dragonborn, you are not the Grey Warden, and you're not the commander of the most advanced fleet in the galaxy. You're just a peasant, another vulture looking to grow fat on the misery of the land. It is reasonable not to be able to wear a king's armor within the first 30 days of arriving in Calradia.

And with the encumbrance, sprinting and hampering system, 24 STR doesn't make you an oaf as it did in Native.

Although, I think 21 might be a more reasonable limit. Might make the ranges extremely narrow with 5 tiers though.

Most companions wouldnt be able to wear anything until very high level.

Agree, although this is a companion leveling issue. With the removal of old-school Trainer, it takes forever to level them playing the game normally. I've pretty much given up on them being anything more than stat mules.

 

[sirballington]

Will there be a general increase in stat values (both AI and player of course)? e.g in Native the highest damage weapon was the great Bardiche at 50c, requiring 12 STR. Perhaps the highest damage weapon can require 24 STR and do something like 70c. Of course, armor values have to be compensated across the board, especially high tier units.

21 STR for armor, 24 STR for weapon. Workable?