Unknown2011-10-12 03:12:08
Discussion on how (and if, I suppose) to balance low Int races, which currently go all but unplayed.
foolofsound:
Terrible Idea: Make all Mana damage skills Psychic type, then throw around some resistance to Psychic damage.
Alternatively, add an Athletics skill that gives resistance to Mana drain skills, to make low Int a little less crippling.
Sojiro:
Hod
Vadi:
Mana drains drain a percentage of mana as a bulk of their damage, and typically when you have low mana, you have high int - so you're less suspectible to damage skills. Why's this a problem?
Tervic:
Um.... I think some nouns got swapped around here? I'm assuming you mean "When you have low mana you have high con". That said, I don't think anyone has a 50% health instakill whereas there are many of these for mana.
Enyalida:
It is a bulk of the mana damage, but so is the intelligence/mana of the user, and it does start at a certain base. Adding protection to everyone against mana damage isn't the way to go though, it will help the bad int races, but the gap between them and higher int races will remain the same.
Unknown2011-10-12 03:12:20
Vadi:
Didn't realize manakills were suddenly an issue. Sparkleberry, mana sipping and the Healing scroll cover active manadrain attacks pretty well - adding in some wisdom not to use focus mind / insomnia and other mana-lessening skills, along with some hindering, and you'd have an easier time keeping your mana up against a manadrain class than a TK who is leaning on the vessels/stun/throatlock macro.
Enyalida:
I don't think he's pointing the finger at manakills here. He's pointing it at races that are made very undesirable for not many other reasons besides a pitifully and quite painfully low int. It's not a stat anyone can afford a dump, while most classes have at least one dump stat (strength). He's saying that a lot of the good warrior races are blocked by having low int and are therefore not seen outside of cameos. Mages on the other hand (for instance), can afford to dump both str and con, if they have enough cha for forcefield.
foolofsound:
Manakills are an issue ONLY to low Int races.... which nobody plays for a reason. How many Krokani (an otherwise pretty good warrior/monk race) do you see running around? A low Int race is at too much risk of being splatted by Swoopspam or DoubleHaegl -> Any mana kill or CrowCaw -> Toaded to be viable as a permanent race.
Perhaps introduce a Athletics skill that lets you transmute Health to Mana, Cannibalize-style. That would make manadrain an effective tactic without it being devastating to low Int races.
I'm not suggesting nerfing manakills as a whole, only make them less ridiculous against low Int races in some way. If you have another suggestion I would be pleased to hear it.
Vadi:
So you'd like those races to preserve their bonuses, while have the manakill suspectibility alleviated? I think you'd need to tone down their bonuses then (otherwise this'll be some iffy 'balancing').
Why isn't Hod a solution? You're saying that as if vitality is useless as well then - it's definitely not. Neither hod nor vitality are supposed to grant permanent insuspectibility, but they do grant you more time to get out and fix your situation.
foolofsound:
Vadi. Nobody. Plays. Those. Races. For. A. Reason.
It is because they are UNDERPOWERED. Therefore, they do not need to balance reduced susceptibility to mana drain with weaker stats/advantages. That's like suggesting that we nerf Tae'dae racial resistances because we want to make them slightly faster SO THAT PEOPLE PLAY THEM.
What you are suggesting is akin to asking that any improvements to warriors coming from this report be 'balanced' by removing their useful Athletics abilities.
I didn't say Hod is useless, nor Vitality, so don't you dare try to strawman me. Hod is simply insufficient to make low Int races viable, otherwise they would be in use.
To summarize, if no one uses something, it needs to be fixed.
Enyalida:
Make some exra defense against manakills to WARRIORS ONLY sounds like a much better idea then across the board, which would be silly. This defensive mode would probably not be useable in conjunction with surge. Generally, I feel that outliers aside, warriors are supposed to be a longer phase attrition class (which does have issues in burst based Lusty combat), which is why they get a bunch of special defenses. Especially if warriors get normalized (outliers toned the heck down, everyone else brought up), this warrants consideration.
Warriors do have to spread their stats across more then any other class, I wouldn't be against mitigating having a low int for them. I do not think this will necessarily make manakilling them impossible, or invalidate another archetype.
As for Hod: Not all warriors take Highmagic, they shouldn't have to.
Unknown2011-10-12 03:13:31
The other major topic for discussion of course being EQ/Balance bonuses/penalties, and how to make slow races playable.
Unknown2011-10-12 03:22:19
I like the idea of a counterpart to Surge; reduce max Health by 33% and add it to max Mana. That would alleviate the problem of low Int races significantly.
Sidd2011-10-12 14:53:54
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Races with penalities that make them undesirable usually have something that warrants that penalty.
For instance, Tae'Dae have lvl 3 Bal malus, lvl3 eq malus, lvl3 magic dam malus and lvl2 fire dam malus, but have lvl3 cutting/blunt/poison/cold resist and lvl2 psychic resist
You have your pros and your cons, some people still like to play Tae'Dae and use it strengths to their advantage (Thul comes to mind). The problem is, you have to give some to get some and you have to approach each race individually. Low Int warriors typically have high end strength. You can't just ignore that fact and say 'we need to counter low int's in warrior races.'
We might as well just forge everything into one super race with 20 points in each stat and lvl3 bonuses to everything so we can all have our cake and eat it too.
For instance, Tae'Dae have lvl 3 Bal malus, lvl3 eq malus, lvl3 magic dam malus and lvl2 fire dam malus, but have lvl3 cutting/blunt/poison/cold resist and lvl2 psychic resist
You have your pros and your cons, some people still like to play Tae'Dae and use it strengths to their advantage (Thul comes to mind). The problem is, you have to give some to get some and you have to approach each race individually. Low Int warriors typically have high end strength. You can't just ignore that fact and say 'we need to counter low int's in warrior races.'
We might as well just forge everything into one super race with 20 points in each stat and lvl3 bonuses to everything so we can all have our cake and eat it too.
Unknown2011-10-12 15:14:49
That's silly Sidd. Why would you feel that a race that nobody plays (the only viable combat Tae'daes are flukes) and claim that they are balanced? Obviously their disadvantages outweigh their advantages, and thus the disadvantages need to be lessened OR be given additional advantages.
You said yourself that Speed is King, and yet now you try to claim that Tae'dae's abysmal speed is a viable balance factor? Please. Virtually everyone know that to be untrue.
Possibly a low Int is not a colossal problem. That said, it seems that the only major weakness Krokani have is thier poor Int, yet we see very few of those. Perhaps there is something I'm missing, or the other warrior/monk races are just that much better, but to claim that unplayed races (or races that are only viable with an extremely specific build) are balanced and should go unchanged is laughable.
Have you considered a career in political commentary? You are SKILLED at hyperbole.
You said yourself that Speed is King, and yet now you try to claim that Tae'dae's abysmal speed is a viable balance factor? Please. Virtually everyone know that to be untrue.
Possibly a low Int is not a colossal problem. That said, it seems that the only major weakness Krokani have is thier poor Int, yet we see very few of those. Perhaps there is something I'm missing, or the other warrior/monk races are just that much better, but to claim that unplayed races (or races that are only viable with an extremely specific build) are balanced and should go unchanged is laughable.
Sidd:
We might as well just forge everything into one super race with 20 points in each stat and lvl3 bonuses to everything so we can all have our cake and eat it too.
Have you considered a career in political commentary? You are SKILLED at hyperbole.
Lerad2011-10-12 15:38:24
foolofsound:
...
Have you considered a career in political commentary? You are SKILLED at hyperbole.
Just before I make my suggestions, I just want to point out that this comment is too much. I don't know what your problem with Sidd's tone is, but making snarky comments in an idea thread is counter productive and just makes you look aggressive for no good reason. The basic premise to healthy discussion is to debate the topic, not the debater. Passive-aggressive comments that poke fun at or tries to discredit a poster sours the mood. If you disagree with what he said, just say so and bring up your own arguments. There's no need to add that extra line for your own self-satisfaction.
That said, I posted in the main special report thread about races before I looked in here, and realised that what I posted should have come here instead. I've taken the liberty of quoting my own post. If a moderator wants to, I suppose they should move the previous few posts there, which are relevant to this discussion, here instead.
Lerad:
I think here we need to take a step back and think about what we're aiming for. Do we want to see more races used for RP, or do we want to see races used for their stats?
In a game where min-maxing occurs, and we have a wealth of choice (almost 20? races, iirc), the result will ALWAYS be that each class or archetype gravitates toward one or two race, and that's it. While the other choices may "come close", min-maxers won't settle for 2nd place, and will almost always choose the race that gives the most benefit, even if the benefit is higher by a small amount.
If we want to see more racial diversity for the sake of their stats, then we need to make the races that are underplayed buffer, and more comparable, to those "min-max" races.
If we want to see more racial diversity for the sake of purely RP, then we just need to seperate races from stats, so that we don't need to have over 20 different stat setups, of which half of them just don't compare.
Of course, the best solution is statpacks. I don't think the admin will go for it, though, but I'm suggesting it anyway.
Alternatives to statpacks would be to, as mentioned, lower the maluses that come with certain underplayed races until they are competitive with the min-max races. If this means raising int by a point or two, we can certainly consider that. Alternatively, we could add more unique racial mechanics, like the illithoid illdrain or the kephera hive, to the other races, which might make them more attractive to play beyond pure stats and number crunching. (Min-maxers would ignore that, of course, but they always do, anyway). Maybe something like an Orclach ability to intimidate mobs ala nymph fae, once every in-game day? Maybe a tae-dae hug will heal furrikins and give both the hugged furrikin and the tae'dae an hour-long max ego boost, with the limit of once every in-game day? Etc etc.
Unknown2011-10-12 15:44:56
My reaction was uncalled for and I apologize.
I do like the idea of statpacks, though I doubt the admins will let that fly. That said, I feel that you give a fair assessment of the problems racial balance face. I still feel that low Int is a problem that many races face, especially since the ONLY defenses against manadrain are Hod and Torc, though I can't actually give solid evidence to support this, only conjecture based on my experiences.
I do like the idea of statpacks, though I doubt the admins will let that fly. That said, I feel that you give a fair assessment of the problems racial balance face. I still feel that low Int is a problem that many races face, especially since the ONLY defenses against manadrain are Hod and Torc, though I can't actually give solid evidence to support this, only conjecture based on my experiences.
Lerad2011-10-12 15:50:56
Walraven:
I'm not sure which of those is best, buffing things may cause new imbalances to arise.
But if you would chose to buff the rare races, I'd love it if they kept their weakness (such as low wit) but had their strong points improved. I like the idea of some races having great strengths and an Achilles' heel, and others being more all-round. I do feel that at the moment the all-round races (which I think are human, aslaran and shadow faeling) have great strengths and little drawbacks.
I'm not sure if making outliers more outlier will be a good idea. For example, the tae'dae suffer from low int, and is rather unplayed due to their slowness. By your suggestion, we could try to keep this slowness but buff str even more. Tae'dae str on monks (specifically Thul as an example) had already caused some fuss over the outlier damage he can potentially (and has been able to) do. Buffing str would skew that even more. Maybe for some of the more 'moderate' races, that may be a good suggestion, say, krokani doesn't have any stat that is all the way out in the 18s and 19s, so a buff in those stats while keeping int low may not unbalance things too much.
Another thing however, is that if the low int is the major (possibly only) reason the race is unplayed, leaving the weakness in place won't make the race any more attractive either, leaving the problem unsolved.
Unknown2011-10-12 15:51:15
Sojiro:
I don't really think low int warriors being bad is a major imbalance. You can envoy athletics if you wish.
foolofsound:
You don't believe that Int is not a major reason some races are virtually never played? Then pray tell why there aren't more Krokani/Orclach running around.
Sidd:
Strictly because Aslaran or faeling are better? Which I hate to tell you, has nothing to do with Int, it was to do with speed. Speed is King
Sojiro:
That's pretty much it.
Maybe one time in the very distant past, warriors were slow balance races because they could damage out robe wearers. That definitely isn't the case now, so speed is king.
Also krokani remains a solid race for BC's, and I remember an igasho BM or two. Akui for instance loved playing orclach.
foolofsound:
If you don't feel that it's a problem...
In that case I suppose we should focus on Balance/EQ bonuses/penalties, which are, admittedly, a larger problem.
Sojiro:
Yes, that's more of what I was thinking of when we talk about the races, assuming it gets voted on to be a major imbalance.
Sylphas:
Does anyone solo manakill without some kind of lock? In groups, everything is a problem, yeah. Solo, it's not like you're just going to pop on a Succumb and wait, or spam Lash. I'm not seeing the issue.
Lerad:
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but just for curiosity's sake, I'm interested to know where you got your statistics, if any, from. I'm well aware that low int races are not popular, but the magnitude of the low popularity has never been clearly stated before, and to make sweeping statements based on it is probably unwise at best. If any admin reading this could check and release a list of what the current race usage in the game is like amongst active players, it would help. It still will not be enough to make statements that point to specific cause and effect of low popularity, but hard numbers would be a start.
Raeri:
Nonspec numbers were posted in the last racial revamp thread, I believe. Referred to in this post here: http://forums.luster...ndpost&p=787963
Though, I don't think that's of active players. An update would be good in any case (possibly of just active players within last month or ranked in experience?)
Unknown2011-10-12 15:52:21
foolofsound:
I really believe that it's painfully obvious that some races, even ones with minimal (Orclach) or no (Krokani) speed malus rarely get played, at least by active combatants. I will be the first to admit that I'm not a top tier combatant, in fact I would probably call myself a lowbie, but even I notice that there are VERY few low Int races taking part in combat.
The only reason I feel that we should address this issue it that it's a relatively simply fix (give warriors the ability to sacrifice Health for Mana) that would take a single line in the report, while making at four races (Orclach, Krokani, Igasho, Tae'dae) more playable.
Sidd:
Mugwumps also have pretty large weaknesses that don't really make up for them, I know at least 2 people that roll around on Mugwump and I've changelinged into them before as well. You also have to remember that with caster type races, sometimes speed isn't king and you more want to be tankier (roll as viscanti/dracnari/illithoid) or you want to play something like faeling with high int, but few maluses. Again, people don't play mugwump because there are better races to play out there. The same goes for warriors, Krokani -is- a solid race for BC, There's been Igasho rolling around, but the fact is, Aslaran and Faeling are plain -better-.
Walraven:
I'm with Sidd here. I switched from Orclach to Aslaran (as a pureblade warrior) and concluded that Aslarans are offensively superior to Orclach because of their speed and high dexterity. As an aslaran, I can build wounds faster, and I get the high end afflictions easier. Aslarans also bash faster.
Even in the (health) tankiness department Orclach cannot seem to beat Aslaran. Orclach have good health and natural regeneration, but do beter in pvp to not use surge and athletics regeneration because they need all their mana for clots and focus minds and such, and they have good health anyway. Aslarans, with their high intelligence, can get a great surge and still have plenty of mana.
So, top tier Orclach cannot outclass Aslarans even in things that Orclach are supposedly good at. No wonder there's so few of them around. Orclach was wonderful for low level bashing because of the high health and natural regeneration. Aslaran is more difficult at low levels.
Nerf aslarans and you'll seethe other races popping up againeveryone running for the next best race.
foolofsound:
That seems to be a fair assessment. In that case, do you recommend buffing the other races to make them competitive, or nerfing Aslaran/Faeling sufficiently to make people want to switch out? I feel that buffing up is less likely to cause turmoil, though I suppose either would work.
Walraven:
I'm not sure which of those is best, buffing things may cause new imbalances to arise.
But if you would chose to buff the rare races, I'd love it if they kept their weakness (such as low wit) but had their strong points improved. I like the idea of some races having great strengths and an Achilles' heel, and others being more all-round. I do feel that at the moment the all-round races (which I think are human, aslaran and shadow faeling) have great strengths and little drawbacks.
Lerad2011-10-12 15:53:52
foolofsound:
My reaction was uncalled for and I apologize.
I do like the idea of statpacks, though I doubt the admins will let that fly. That said, I feel that you give a fair assessment of the problems racial balance face. I still feel that low Int is a problem that many races face, especially since the ONLY defenses against manadrain are Hod and Torc, though I can't actually give solid evidence to support this, only conjecture based on my experiences.
Yes, statpacks is likely a suggestion that will be rejected. I haven't seen a concrete admin clarification as to why yet, but the dingbat hats make it quite clear they would prefer such seperation to be something special and possibly paid for, rather than as a part of the game by default. Also, note that the hats don't actually change your race for mechanical purposes (racial emotes, rwho), only gives the illusion of doing so.
Going into defenses against manakills opens up an entire book on combat theory, with all the different classes that have access to a manakill. I don't think we really want to go there, though.
Walraven2011-10-12 15:57:39
Races with weaknesses offer an avenue of combat strategy, even if the edge is slight. To fight an Orclach, use bleeding. For a Mugwump, go for damage. Facing an Aslaran, stack herb cures. (Shadowlord Faeling? Run for cover). You'd lose that with statpacks.
Unknown2011-10-12 16:01:18
Racial weaknesses are fine; I'm just questioning if the racial weakness of low Int is too great for a races advantages to surpass. If we find that to be the case, what is easier: modify all low Int races/Mana formula, or add a single skill to Athletics that reduces their vulnerability (after all, most low Int races are made to be warriors)?
Unknown2011-10-12 16:41:42
Regarding races:
The problem as I see it boils down to the following.
Players, absent RP preference (Hooooo!) will naturally tend towards a race that gives them the most of what they want/need while giving up the least to get it. It is possible to "give up" enough that the costs out weigh the benefits sought.
In addition, some "costs" can be directly overcome, while others cannot.
For example, as a Cantor, I enjoy seasinger Merian for the RP and bonuses. However, with the strong elemental weaknesses, and 10 constitution, the race is difficult to manage at times. In fact, unspecced faeling is generally a better choice! 9 constitution I can overcome with life runes, favours and blessings. There's no getting around the merian elemental penalties in the end, and faeling has a massive sip bonus just to put it over the top.
We can boil down what kills racial viability in to two categories:
Insurmountably fragile: Generally, low/middle-low constitution coupled with a substantial elemental weakness. I can overcome just low constitution quite easily. If I have a high constitution, I can generally still survive an elemental weakness without it being crippling. It is when these two are combined that inviability really kicks in.
Insurmountably weak offense: Tae'dae are the best example. You're just never going to be viable with those penalties. Faeling knights- despite being possibly OP in other areas (without even touching TK faelings) there's no getting around that 7 str for knights- which wouldn't be a real problem, if they weren't an org's spec race.
I don't see it as a systemic failure at all. We don't need to rework the whole system. Most races at this point are more or less viable if someone wants to play them, and do what they are supposed to do. There's no point in unmaking that fact by engineering the other mechanics to address issues that are ultimately faced by specific races.
All races aren't going to be optimal. The only real problem is those that are sometimes nearly unplayable. That is relatively few.
Aslaran: Fine. A solid generalist race at demi, with an offensive bent- speed against a nasty malus.
Dracnari: Neat resists, fairly solid stats. The sip penalty hurts more than the cold malus, when I played one, but they're generally tough enough to get away with it.
Dwarf: Good stats for a knight, or a brewmiester bard! Workable. If anything at all, give them a point or two of dex and call it a day.
Elfen: A stat-bag with no penalties, and no major advantages beyond the stats. The 11 con can be overcome. They're fine.
Faeling: see below
Furrikin: Strength makes them unworkable as knights, but they get away with everything else. One light elemental weakness and 11 constitution makes them frail, but not unworkably so. They're fine.
Human: Not even going to delve in to this. Stat bag. Free xp. They're fine.
Igasho: see below
Illithoid: stat bag. Poor at knight. Useless as bard. Great at everything else. 1 strong malus more than offset by 16 con. They're fine.
Kephera: Meh-to middling stats offset by great resists. These and the passable con score outweigh the penalties. They're fine.
Krokani: Pretty good statistics for a knight or monk. Two really nice resists, only offset by two level 1 penalties. They're fine.
Loboshigaru: Decent stats for a knight or monk again. One big malus, overcome by regen and good CON.
Lucidian: Resists and good constituton offset the penalties. They're fine.
Merian: See below
Mugwump: See below
Orclach: Good resists, decent knight stats, regen. One big malus, one little one. They're fine.
Tae'dae: See below
Taurian: Good knight stats and resists, small malus. They're pretty decent really!
Trill: Fairly low con, and one weak elemental malus, but some good resists. Workable.
Viscanti: Fairly stat poor, but some really nice resists. Sip penalty is surmountable.
*Faeling- the problem for them is, they're arguably TOO strong with some set ups, but, even with the big balance bonus, but their strength is too low for knights. Which matters because they need to be when they spec in glom at least. Honestly, they could be fixed by dragging their extreme stats a little more in line. Give them (or at least SL faelings) more str. Give them 12 base con. Lose the sip advantage. Decrease the balance bonus. They'd have as much constitution as an aslaran then, without the maluses, and free flight. They'd be really good still, workable as knights, and not have as bad an outlier problem. Alternately, keep the sip bonus, give them like 11 con, and give them an elemental malus. Generally they're a pain to balance because they're SO good at some stuff, but deficient in others.
*Igasho- kinda the reverse of faeling. One level one malus, 18 con, and a whole truck load of resists. So you could remove the balance penalties, but geeze, they'd be tough, and strong, with no drawbacks. I'd say, remove the balance penalty, or reduce it to level 1, and drop the level 2 resists down to 1.
*Merian- Con is too low to have level 2 elemental maluses. Unlike the above two that are more an issue in trade offs, merian is nearly unuseable due to the situation. With demi stats, acro defenses, splendours/proofs, beast bodyguard, max life rune, glamour defenses, RoA, and attunement and other skill based defenses, it is STILL a pretty rough go for me, due to the maluses really. They have only 1 more base con than faeling, and don't have that big sip bonus to even begin to off set it. Either bump the con up to base 13-14 and leave the maluses, or drop the maluses and leave base con at 10, or make con 12 or so and drop the maluses to level 1.
Mugwump- Basically, a copy-paste of the above. The disadvantages meaningfully outweigh the advantages. The solution would be very similar. Increase con, reduce maluses. Suddenly, the race is playable.
Tae'dae- Really tough for many things, really weak to fire/magic. From playing orclach a lot, I can tell you that the 17 con tae have, coupled with resists to other things, compensate for the weaknesses. However, they cannot function with the penalties. I would drop the balance penalty entirely, and leave the EQ there for flavour. It would leave the "feel" of tae'dae in place, and at least give them a base functionality for knights.
Remember, there are very few races with real functionality issues. Orclach are fine. Krokani are fine. I've played the former enough to know. The above five are the only ones that really NEED any sort of attention, and we don't need to touch the underlying mechanics to do this. Just a few tweaks to the above, and ALL THE RACES IN THE GAME would be at least playable!
...and maybe those extra dex point/s for dwarves, because <3 orclach and dwarves, especially in Lusternia.
The problem as I see it boils down to the following.
Players, absent RP preference (Hooooo!) will naturally tend towards a race that gives them the most of what they want/need while giving up the least to get it. It is possible to "give up" enough that the costs out weigh the benefits sought.
In addition, some "costs" can be directly overcome, while others cannot.
For example, as a Cantor, I enjoy seasinger Merian for the RP and bonuses. However, with the strong elemental weaknesses, and 10 constitution, the race is difficult to manage at times. In fact, unspecced faeling is generally a better choice! 9 constitution I can overcome with life runes, favours and blessings. There's no getting around the merian elemental penalties in the end, and faeling has a massive sip bonus just to put it over the top.
We can boil down what kills racial viability in to two categories:
Insurmountably fragile: Generally, low/middle-low constitution coupled with a substantial elemental weakness. I can overcome just low constitution quite easily. If I have a high constitution, I can generally still survive an elemental weakness without it being crippling. It is when these two are combined that inviability really kicks in.
Insurmountably weak offense: Tae'dae are the best example. You're just never going to be viable with those penalties. Faeling knights- despite being possibly OP in other areas (without even touching TK faelings) there's no getting around that 7 str for knights- which wouldn't be a real problem, if they weren't an org's spec race.
I don't see it as a systemic failure at all. We don't need to rework the whole system. Most races at this point are more or less viable if someone wants to play them, and do what they are supposed to do. There's no point in unmaking that fact by engineering the other mechanics to address issues that are ultimately faced by specific races.
All races aren't going to be optimal. The only real problem is those that are sometimes nearly unplayable. That is relatively few.
Aslaran: Fine. A solid generalist race at demi, with an offensive bent- speed against a nasty malus.
Dracnari: Neat resists, fairly solid stats. The sip penalty hurts more than the cold malus, when I played one, but they're generally tough enough to get away with it.
Dwarf: Good stats for a knight, or a brewmiester bard! Workable. If anything at all, give them a point or two of dex and call it a day.
Elfen: A stat-bag with no penalties, and no major advantages beyond the stats. The 11 con can be overcome. They're fine.
Faeling: see below
Furrikin: Strength makes them unworkable as knights, but they get away with everything else. One light elemental weakness and 11 constitution makes them frail, but not unworkably so. They're fine.
Human: Not even going to delve in to this. Stat bag. Free xp. They're fine.
Igasho: see below
Illithoid: stat bag. Poor at knight. Useless as bard. Great at everything else. 1 strong malus more than offset by 16 con. They're fine.
Kephera: Meh-to middling stats offset by great resists. These and the passable con score outweigh the penalties. They're fine.
Krokani: Pretty good statistics for a knight or monk. Two really nice resists, only offset by two level 1 penalties. They're fine.
Loboshigaru: Decent stats for a knight or monk again. One big malus, overcome by regen and good CON.
Lucidian: Resists and good constituton offset the penalties. They're fine.
Merian: See below
Mugwump: See below
Orclach: Good resists, decent knight stats, regen. One big malus, one little one. They're fine.
Tae'dae: See below
Taurian: Good knight stats and resists, small malus. They're pretty decent really!
Trill: Fairly low con, and one weak elemental malus, but some good resists. Workable.
Viscanti: Fairly stat poor, but some really nice resists. Sip penalty is surmountable.
*Faeling- the problem for them is, they're arguably TOO strong with some set ups, but, even with the big balance bonus, but their strength is too low for knights. Which matters because they need to be when they spec in glom at least. Honestly, they could be fixed by dragging their extreme stats a little more in line. Give them (or at least SL faelings) more str. Give them 12 base con. Lose the sip advantage. Decrease the balance bonus. They'd have as much constitution as an aslaran then, without the maluses, and free flight. They'd be really good still, workable as knights, and not have as bad an outlier problem. Alternately, keep the sip bonus, give them like 11 con, and give them an elemental malus. Generally they're a pain to balance because they're SO good at some stuff, but deficient in others.
*Igasho- kinda the reverse of faeling. One level one malus, 18 con, and a whole truck load of resists. So you could remove the balance penalties, but geeze, they'd be tough, and strong, with no drawbacks. I'd say, remove the balance penalty, or reduce it to level 1, and drop the level 2 resists down to 1.
*Merian- Con is too low to have level 2 elemental maluses. Unlike the above two that are more an issue in trade offs, merian is nearly unuseable due to the situation. With demi stats, acro defenses, splendours/proofs, beast bodyguard, max life rune, glamour defenses, RoA, and attunement and other skill based defenses, it is STILL a pretty rough go for me, due to the maluses really. They have only 1 more base con than faeling, and don't have that big sip bonus to even begin to off set it. Either bump the con up to base 13-14 and leave the maluses, or drop the maluses and leave base con at 10, or make con 12 or so and drop the maluses to level 1.
Mugwump- Basically, a copy-paste of the above. The disadvantages meaningfully outweigh the advantages. The solution would be very similar. Increase con, reduce maluses. Suddenly, the race is playable.
Tae'dae- Really tough for many things, really weak to fire/magic. From playing orclach a lot, I can tell you that the 17 con tae have, coupled with resists to other things, compensate for the weaknesses. However, they cannot function with the penalties. I would drop the balance penalty entirely, and leave the EQ there for flavour. It would leave the "feel" of tae'dae in place, and at least give them a base functionality for knights.
Remember, there are very few races with real functionality issues. Orclach are fine. Krokani are fine. I've played the former enough to know. The above five are the only ones that really NEED any sort of attention, and we don't need to touch the underlying mechanics to do this. Just a few tweaks to the above, and ALL THE RACES IN THE GAME would be at least playable!
...and maybe those extra dex point/s for dwarves, because <3 orclach and dwarves, especially in Lusternia.
Unknown2011-10-12 16:51:39
Rainydays:
Regarding races:
The problem as I see it boils down to the following.
Players, absent RP preference (Hooooo!) will naturally tend towards a race that gives them the most of what they want/need while giving up the least to get it. It is possible to "give up" enough that the costs out weigh the benefits sought.
In addition, some "costs" can be directly overcome, while others cannot.
For example, as a Cantor, I enjoy seasinger Merian for the RP and bonuses. However, with the strong elemental weaknesses, and 10 constitution, the race is difficult to manage at times. In fact, unspecced faeling is generally a better choice! 9 constitution I can overcome with life runes, favours and blessings. There's no getting around the merian elemental penalties in the end, and faeling has a massive sip bonus just to put it over the top.
We can boil down what kills racial viability in to two categories:
Insurmountably fragile: Generally, low/middle-low constitution coupled with a substantial elemental weakness. I can overcome just low constitution quite easily. If I have a high constitution, I can generally still survive an elemental weakness without it being crippling. It is when these two are combined that inviability really kicks in.
Insurmountably weak offense: Tae'dae are the best example. You're just never going to be viable with those penalties. Faeling knights- despite being possibly OP in other areas (without even touching TK faelings) there's no getting around that 7 str for knights- which wouldn't be a real problem, if they weren't an org's spec race.
I don't see it as a systemic failure at all. We don't need to rework the whole system. Most races at this point are more or less viable if someone wants to play them, and do what they are supposed to do. There's no point in unmaking that fact by engineering the other mechanics to address issues that are ultimately faced by specific races.
All races aren't going to be optimal. The only real problem is those that are sometimes nearly unplayable. That is relatively few.
Aslaran: Fine. A solid generalist race at demi, with an offensive bent- speed against a nasty malus.
Dracnari: Neat resists, fairly solid stats. The sip penalty hurts more than the cold malus, when I played one, but they're generally tough enough to get away with it.
Dwarf: Good stats for a knight, or a brewmiester bard! Workable. If anything at all, give them a point or two of dex and call it a day.
Elfen: A stat-bag with no penalties, and no major advantages beyond the stats. The 11 con can be overcome. They're fine.
Faeling: see below
Furrikin: Strength makes them unworkable as knights, but they get away with everything else. One light elemental weakness and 11 constitution makes them frail, but not unworkably so. They're fine.
Human: Not even going to delve in to this. Stat bag. Free xp. They're fine.
Igasho: see below
Illithoid: stat bag. Poor at knight. Useless as bard. Great at everything else. 1 strong malus more than offset by 16 con. They're fine.
Kephera: Meh-to middling stats offset by great resists. These and the passable con score outweigh the penalties. They're fine.
Krokani: Pretty good statistics for a knight or monk. Two really nice resists, only offset by two level 1 penalties. They're fine.
Loboshigaru: Decent stats for a knight or monk again. One big malus, overcome by regen and good CON.
Lucidian: Resists and good constituton offset the penalties. They're fine.
Merian: See below
Mugwump: See below
Orclach: Good resists, decent knight stats, regen. One big malus, one little one. They're fine.
Tae'dae: See below
Taurian: Good knight stats and resists, small malus. They're pretty decent really!
Trill: Fairly low con, and one weak elemental malus, but some good resists. Workable.
Viscanti: Fairly stat poor, but some really nice resists. Sip penalty is surmountable.
*Faeling- the problem for them is, they're arguably TOO strong with some set ups, but, even with the big balance bonus, but their strength is too low for knights. Which matters because they need to be when they spec in glom at least. Honestly, they could be fixed by dragging their extreme stats a little more in line. Give them (or at least SL faelings) more str. Give them 12 base con. Lose the sip advantage. Decrease the balance bonus. They'd have as much constitution as an aslaran then, without the maluses, and free flight. They'd be really good still, workable as knights, and not have as bad an outlier problem. Alternately, keep the sip bonus, give them like 11 con, and give them an elemental malus. Generally they're a pain to balance because they're SO good at some stuff, but deficient in others.
*Igasho- kinda the reverse of faeling. One level one malus, 18 con, and a whole truck load of resists. So you could remove the balance penalties, but geeze, they'd be tough, and strong, with no drawbacks. I'd say, remove the balance penalty, or reduce it to level 1, and drop the level 2 resists down to 1.
*Merian- Con is too low to have level 2 elemental maluses. Unlike the above two that are more an issue in trade offs, merian is nearly unuseable due to the situation. With demi stats, acro defenses, splendours/proofs, beast bodyguard, max life rune, glamour defenses, RoA, and attunement and other skill based defenses, it is STILL a pretty rough go for me, due to the maluses really. They have only 1 more base con than faeling, and don't have that big sip bonus to even begin to off set it. Either bump the con up to base 13-14 and leave the maluses, or drop the maluses and leave base con at 10, or make con 12 or so and drop the maluses to level 1.
Mugwump- Basically, a copy-paste of the above. The disadvantages meaningfully outweigh the advantages. The solution would be very similar. Increase con, reduce maluses. Suddenly, the race is playable.
Tae'dae- Really tough for many things, really weak to fire/magic. From playing orclach a lot, I can tell you that the 17 con tae have, coupled with resists to other things, compensate for the weaknesses. However, they cannot function with the penalties. I would drop the balance penalty entirely, and leave the EQ there for flavour. It would leave the "feel" of tae'dae in place, and at least give them a base functionality for knights.
Remember, there are very few races with real functionality issues. Orclach are fine. Krokani are fine. I've played the former enough to know. The above five are the only ones that really NEED any sort of attention, and we don't need to touch the underlying mechanics to do this. Just a few tweaks to the above, and ALL THE RACES IN THE GAME would be at least playable!
...and maybe those extra dex point/s for dwarves, because <3 orclach and dwarves, especially in Lusternia.
Unknown2011-10-12 16:56:49
More specifically to the thread, the INT issue is circumstantial. Yes, dying to manakills as an orclach was really harsh. Yes, villiage revolts were comical (I called it "orc-fluencing"). However, over all, the race was entirely functional. I never had problems mounting an offense that wasn't due to me more than the race. I enjoyed the toughness of the race in situations that didn't involve my mana or ego pool.
People don't play races that have penalties that make them crippling. Tae'dae- balance penalty. SL faelings- strength. Merian/mugs- WAAAAY too fragile. See above post.
If I had to pick 3 races that it acutally is harmful to the game? Tae'dae, Merians, Mugs. Easily. I can make anything else work, assuming it is for a guild they are suited for to begin with (no orclach/thoid bards, naturally). But I'll never make a Tae work as is. I'll never get a merian or mug to a point that overcomes their super low con paired with big maluses. I can get an unspecc'd faeling to work better than a seasinger merian as a cantor, with a lot of tricks in my bag.
We can make them playable with tweaks. If people don't play them because nobody wants to play a bull thing, a yeti, or a frog, well, that's different.
People don't play races that have penalties that make them crippling. Tae'dae- balance penalty. SL faelings- strength. Merian/mugs- WAAAAY too fragile. See above post.
If I had to pick 3 races that it acutally is harmful to the game? Tae'dae, Merians, Mugs. Easily. I can make anything else work, assuming it is for a guild they are suited for to begin with (no orclach/thoid bards, naturally). But I'll never make a Tae work as is. I'll never get a merian or mug to a point that overcomes their super low con paired with big maluses. I can get an unspecc'd faeling to work better than a seasinger merian as a cantor, with a lot of tricks in my bag.
We can make them playable with tweaks. If people don't play them because nobody wants to play a bull thing, a yeti, or a frog, well, that's different.
Unknown2011-10-12 16:59:33
I'm hesitant to give Faelings above average Con, even if it meant cutting back their ridiculousness in Bard/Mage/Druid/Guardian/Wiccan (especially ShadowFaelings). The biggest problem that I see with Faelings is that they ALWAYS can surmount their largest disadvantage, their squishiness.
Mages have ForceField, Wiccans have the absurd Nightkiss/Drawdown DMP (24 in everything, or so I've been told), Bards have stackable protections (IllusorySelf+Dodging+Bard def songs).
In the end, Faelings get away with no real major disadvantage, especially considering their sip bonus.
If feel that this also applies (to a lesser extent) to the other squishy races.
If multiple people who have actually played low Int races believe that manakills aren't a problem, I really have no choice but to believe them, as I have no solid counter-evidence. My arguments were based on examining the statline of the races and trying to deduce the problems. If it turns out I was incorrect, then sorry to waste time on that subject.
Mages have ForceField, Wiccans have the absurd Nightkiss/Drawdown DMP (24 in everything, or so I've been told), Bards have stackable protections (IllusorySelf+Dodging+Bard def songs).
In the end, Faelings get away with no real major disadvantage, especially considering their sip bonus.
If feel that this also applies (to a lesser extent) to the other squishy races.
If multiple people who have actually played low Int races believe that manakills aren't a problem, I really have no choice but to believe them, as I have no solid counter-evidence. My arguments were based on examining the statline of the races and trying to deduce the problems. If it turns out I was incorrect, then sorry to waste time on that subject.
Unknown2011-10-12 17:10:29
I say it is easy to surpass low con, and it is- at demigod, with artifacts. So it isn't without cost. I would like to see faelings get substantially more con (and strength in SL spec at least), and have their advantages brought in to line, or have disadvantages introduced.
While there are concerns about a "super dexterous, super smart, super charismatic flying race with a big balance bonus, big sip bonus, and no drawbacks", reducing/eliminating the two big draw backs (str and con) would allow the race to be drawn more in line, and be less of a cluster**** of outliers.
All that said, I'm more concerned about merians/mugs/tae'dae. I mean, even as is, faelings are largely fine, even TOO good, for anything but knights, and Igasho aren't entirely hopeless! Merians/mugs/tae are the only three that I'm concerned just won't work as they are.
While there are concerns about a "super dexterous, super smart, super charismatic flying race with a big balance bonus, big sip bonus, and no drawbacks", reducing/eliminating the two big draw backs (str and con) would allow the race to be drawn more in line, and be less of a cluster**** of outliers.
All that said, I'm more concerned about merians/mugs/tae'dae. I mean, even as is, faelings are largely fine, even TOO good, for anything but knights, and Igasho aren't entirely hopeless! Merians/mugs/tae are the only three that I'm concerned just won't work as they are.
Turnus2011-10-12 17:14:12
The addition of the dingbat item at least does allow for one to pick a race for RP reasons while having the stats of another. To a lesser degree at least.
