PDA

View Full Version : Maybe u no, but this jst aint rgt



Teh JoKer
14th October 2009, 07:17 PM
Dagger 1,000 Gold 30
Maul 15,000 Gold 300
Blade 200,000 Gold 3,000
Excalibur 1,000,000 Gold 12,000

So 1 Dagger cost 1,000 and has a strength of 30 and 1 Maul cost 15,000 with 300 strength...?

I buy 15 daggers (same price as 1 maul) total strength of 450 - 150 more than a maul
I buy 13 mauls (almost same price as 1 blade) total strength of 3,900 - 900 more than a blade
I buy 5 blades (same as 1 excalibur) total strength of 15,000 - 3,000 more than an excalibur

*Exact same for DA*

Spy
Cloak 50,000 Gold 30
Hook 100,000 Gold 50
Pickaxe 300,000 Gold 120

Same here... 2 cloaks for the same price as a hook, 10 extra strength. and 3 hooks for a pickaxe also has 30 extra strength. with the same numbers for Sentry.


I thought the point of the more costly weapons was because of their value for money?? But its worth more to just buy the lil weapons :laughing:

zeshan
14th October 2009, 07:25 PM
I think its sort of a penalty you pay for having a small TFF. Anyone willing to have a small TFF will buy these expensive weps rather than lots of small cheap weapons. And with small TFF comes lots of advantages.

Besides that, there is also "Expensive weps more difficult to sab" or something.. so maybe one pays a penalty for that too??

Atleast thats what I think about it.

Teh JoKer
14th October 2009, 07:43 PM
I think its sort of a penalty you pay for having a small TFF. Anyone willing to have a small TFF will buy these expensive weps rather than lots of small cheap weapons. And with small TFF comes lots of advantages.

Besides that, there is also "Expensive weps more difficult to sab" or something.. so maybe one pays a penalty for that too??

Makes sense :P


Atleast thats what I think about it.

Even if its neh all exactly rgt, thanx zeshan :) :D

fury
14th October 2009, 09:20 PM
This is an intentional strategic element to the game. Realistically speaking, smaller and lighter weapons are easier to carry and with the right moves can be more effective than a large, heavy, awkward weapon or piece of armor. When it comes to gameplay, it allows you to compromise by using the cheaper weapons for a sharper stats increase... up to the point you run out of soldiers with which to equip these weapons. So, the choice is either to grow more soldiers and reduce your training flexibility because you have to hold those weapons in order to make use of them, or train soldiers down to spy/sentry so that you can keep a small army size and farm more effectively, or use pickaxes and torches so you don't need to train as many spies/sentries, or put yourself at risk of heavier damage by training mass quantities of spies/sentries and using the cheaper Cloaks and Horns to raise your spy/sentry more quickly

fistsofthor
14th October 2009, 09:53 PM
Besides that, there is also "Expensive weps more difficult to sab" or something.. so maybe one pays a penalty for that too??

I think they round up too on the larger weapons/tools. So, if you could sab away 150 daggers, you can still sab away 1 excalibur.

Since dropping tff is effective in RoC, they made the little weapons more effective so as to provide a counterbalance that promoted choice and strategic game play.

Personally, /me likes.

M3J
14th October 2009, 09:58 PM
This is an intentional strategic element to the game. Realistically speaking, smaller and lighter weapons are easier to carry and with the right moves can be more effective than a large, heavy, awkward weapon or piece of armor. When it comes to gameplay, it allows you to compromise by using the cheaper weapons for a sharper stats increase... up to the point you run out of soldiers with which to equip these weapons. So, the choice is either to grow more soldiers and reduce your training flexibility because you have to hold those weapons in order to make use of them, or train soldiers down to spy/sentry so that you can keep a small army size and farm more effectively, or use pickaxes and torches so you don't need to train as many spies/sentries, or put yourself at risk of heavier damage by training mass quantities of spies/sentries and using the cheaper Cloaks and Horns to raise your spy/sentry more quickly

Didn't the weapon thingie get implemented to compensate for the removal of goblin? O_o

unlimited
14th October 2009, 10:46 PM
It originally did but I highly agree with this concept. KoC right now might as well have 1 weapon in each group: BPM, IS, Nuns, and LT. Nothing else.

I like that you have to choose which weapon to go with, and also how to manage your tff. Yes training down = slaying more, but it means your SA is weaker and you can get those coverts massed away if you have no DA.

KyleCias
15th October 2009, 04:20 AM
This is an intentional strategic element to the game. Realistically speaking, smaller and lighter weapons are easier to carry and with the right moves can be more effective than a large, heavy, awkward weapon or piece of armor. When it comes to gameplay, it allows you to compromise by using the cheaper weapons for a sharper stats increase... up to the point you run out of soldiers with which to equip these weapons. So, the choice is either to grow more soldiers and reduce your training flexibility because you have to hold those weapons in order to make use of them, or train soldiers down to spy/sentry so that you can keep a small army size and farm more effectively, or use pickaxes and torches so you don't need to train as many spies/sentries, or put yourself at risk of heavier damage by training mass quantities of spies/sentries and using the cheaper Cloaks and Horns to raise your spy/sentry more quickly

on this case.. i have to agree with fury.
great post mate.. you deserve rep :)

fury
15th October 2009, 10:08 PM
Didn't the weapon thingie get implemented to compensate for the removal of goblin? O_o

I wouldn't quite call it compensation -- more like integration.

The goblin concept early in the game allowed me to experiment with a couple of ideas that I wanted to try but wasn't sure how well-received they'd be... but I didn't like there being a fifth race, as it added more complexity (something I don't like too much of), and on top of that it was the only race with two distinct bonuses -- the sheer number of soldiers with which to arm weapons, and their overall income was between that of non-humans and humans.

So, their distinct features (the ability to reduce casualties based on your training/weapons, and the cheaper weapons being more cost-effective) were integrated into the classic four races. Think of it as everybody's got a bit of Goblin in 'em.

M3J
16th October 2009, 08:32 PM
Hmm, math is the only complex part, otherwise yeah. Basically a good call for the weapon thingie. As mentioned, makes people think a bit more, affects gameplay more ways than one.