Furien2010-11-17 00:13:50
... Oh, I didn't notice the further DEX debuff on Master Viscanti. What the hell? :|
With regards to size: consistency wouldn't hurt. I still feel like Size can be made meaningful again in some way that will benefit the lacklustre warrior races (Igasho/Taurian/Orclach/Tae'dae etc) - perhaps in regards to health, wounding, damage, or something of the sort. It's another way to tackle the issue short of tacking extra DEX on everything.
With regards to size: consistency wouldn't hurt. I still feel like Size can be made meaningful again in some way that will benefit the lacklustre warrior races (Igasho/Taurian/Orclach/Tae'dae etc) - perhaps in regards to health, wounding, damage, or something of the sort. It's another way to tackle the issue short of tacking extra DEX on everything.
Malarious2010-11-17 06:58:02
QUOTE (Furien @ Nov 16 2010, 06:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Viscanti
All those resistances don't really help when you have a monster sip penalty to deal with. Likewise, their stats are subpar compared to say, dracnari. Specced dracnari, in my experience, function quite well despite the sip penalty, due to their above-average h/m/e pools. Dracnari stats in general are solidly 'above average' around the board.
Buffs:
o Sip malus: 2 -> 1
o Master Viscanti: +1 int, +1 cha (for a total of +4, +3)
o Brood Viscanti: +2 dex (total of +4)
o Irontongue Viscanti: +1 int, +2 cha, +3 dex (for a total of +3, +4, +3).
With INT scaling as it does, most caster types prefer to focus instead on CON and CHA. Unless that scaling is reworked (probably out of the scope of this review) Viscanti are, in the present metagame, a subpar caster race. Master Viscanti should be given more int and cha to fit in with this trend, leaving them with 16INT and 13CHA, both above-average and parallel to other spec races such as Prismatic Lucidian. For Brood Viscanti - hell, Viscanti in general, I don't really understand why 'tainted racial amalgamation' automatically implies 'terribad Dexterity'. DEX has very few buff opportunities: kabobs, truefavours and Antler spheres being the majority of it outside of Bards. Dexterity is also a must-have for Warriors in general as it contributes to landing wound afflictions - the buff in dexterity would leave Brood Viscanti at 14, which still pales to the Elfen Lord's 16 but is offset by the race's resistances. Irontongue Viscanti's buff will let them cap at 19 CHA - lower than the other bards, but again, also offset by the racial resistances. The INT buff will help them fit in with the current Bard damage meta. I throw in a +DEX because dodging is tied with this stat, which the Viscanti are worst off at, next to Seasinger Merians. Bard specializations in general are copy-pasted across the board, which may have to be looked at.
Nerfs:
o Magic resistance: 2 -> 1
o Blunt resistance: 2 -> 1
o Cutting resistance: 2 -> 1
I'm not entirely sure on the magnitude of this. I figure that with the sip malus alleviated and some vitals-related statistics improved (making all of the races considerably more viable than before), asking for a -1 resistance level across the board isn't much of a stretch. You're giving up a bit of tankiness for a lot more offensive (wounds, dodging, damage) and influence (charisma) potential across all the races. With the taint regen and influence bonuses, Viscanti should be a solid race with these changes.
All those resistances don't really help when you have a monster sip penalty to deal with. Likewise, their stats are subpar compared to say, dracnari. Specced dracnari, in my experience, function quite well despite the sip penalty, due to their above-average h/m/e pools. Dracnari stats in general are solidly 'above average' around the board.
Buffs:
o Sip malus: 2 -> 1
o Master Viscanti: +1 int, +1 cha (for a total of +4, +3)
o Brood Viscanti: +2 dex (total of +4)
o Irontongue Viscanti: +1 int, +2 cha, +3 dex (for a total of +3, +4, +3).
With INT scaling as it does, most caster types prefer to focus instead on CON and CHA. Unless that scaling is reworked (probably out of the scope of this review) Viscanti are, in the present metagame, a subpar caster race. Master Viscanti should be given more int and cha to fit in with this trend, leaving them with 16INT and 13CHA, both above-average and parallel to other spec races such as Prismatic Lucidian. For Brood Viscanti - hell, Viscanti in general, I don't really understand why 'tainted racial amalgamation' automatically implies 'terribad Dexterity'. DEX has very few buff opportunities: kabobs, truefavours and Antler spheres being the majority of it outside of Bards. Dexterity is also a must-have for Warriors in general as it contributes to landing wound afflictions - the buff in dexterity would leave Brood Viscanti at 14, which still pales to the Elfen Lord's 16 but is offset by the race's resistances. Irontongue Viscanti's buff will let them cap at 19 CHA - lower than the other bards, but again, also offset by the racial resistances. The INT buff will help them fit in with the current Bard damage meta. I throw in a +DEX because dodging is tied with this stat, which the Viscanti are worst off at, next to Seasinger Merians. Bard specializations in general are copy-pasted across the board, which may have to be looked at.
Nerfs:
o Magic resistance: 2 -> 1
o Blunt resistance: 2 -> 1
o Cutting resistance: 2 -> 1
I'm not entirely sure on the magnitude of this. I figure that with the sip malus alleviated and some vitals-related statistics improved (making all of the races considerably more viable than before), asking for a -1 resistance level across the board isn't much of a stretch. You're giving up a bit of tankiness for a lot more offensive (wounds, dodging, damage) and influence (charisma) potential across all the races. With the taint regen and influence bonuses, Viscanti should be a solid race with these changes.
First thoughts without going over it all too heavily, what about increasing base dex by 2 (leave specs as is for dex), and either +1 int or +1 cha while leaving specs the same in those areas? I dislike lowering resistances but with stats more managable and sipping more on par the sipping and resistances counter each other for health damage at least.
Unknown2010-11-17 12:41:29
I am less than happy about human warrior evolution losing strength and constitution (or losing anything at all, period), but at least I'm not stuck with the race when it sucks. It'll just be time to figure out if krokani or elfen would work better after the changes.
Vathael2010-11-17 12:50:49
I think human is getting nerfed because it has no drawbacks. I loved krokani for bc.
Unknown2010-11-17 13:02:16
Then maybe one day the warrior damage formula will be "fixed" again... like maybe at the same time monks are "fixed." 
Sipelus2010-11-17 13:05:28
QUOTE (Vathael @ Nov 17 2010, 02:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think human is getting nerfed because it has no drawbacks. I loved krokani for bc.
I'm considering going Krokani but am curious whether a knowledge blessing would be enough to offset the rubbish mana they have.
Vathael2010-11-17 13:37:00
QUOTE (Sipelus @ Nov 17 2010, 07:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm considering going Krokani but am curious whether a knowledge blessing would be enough to offset the rubbish mana they have.
I never really had issues with the lower int. Sure a blessing would always help and then there is throne/catacombs/etc
Unknown2010-11-17 15:49:24
QUOTE (Zarquan @ Nov 17 2010, 06:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I am less than happy about human warrior evolution losing strength and constitution (or losing anything at all, period), but at least I'm not stuck with the race when it sucks.
Sucks? I don't think it's really going to be that bad... unless every other warrior race out there sees other buffs, namely along the lines of constitution.
I'm getting the impression that some people feel humans getting nerfed is inevitable, and they don't feel like making arguments on the matter is worthwhile. If you feel it's too much, make your case.
Unknown2010-11-17 16:14:19
Nah, I'm just bitter about being so big and powerful, but I apparently missed the Golden Times. Monks half my might with no artifacts are more effective than me, and that's disheartening.
Unknown2010-11-17 16:17:19
So, Orclach.
Not that I am one ever anymore, since it would make for a rather poor mage, but honestly-
Orclach stats
They're not a popular race as it is. They're a "walking mana kill", and none of their stats are particularly exceptional. If you squash the resists, you make the race crap, because that, and the regen, is all it has.
The same is true for the other resist heavy races. All we're doing here is shuffling the deck and putting different faces under the wheel. Unless we're doing stat packs? It seems like a non-fix.
Basically, if you want the "big tough" races to be viable choices, you need to do something really significant to them. Because as it stands at the moment, its rather crap.
Not that I am one ever anymore, since it would make for a rather poor mage, but honestly-
Orclach stats
They're not a popular race as it is. They're a "walking mana kill", and none of their stats are particularly exceptional. If you squash the resists, you make the race crap, because that, and the regen, is all it has.
The same is true for the other resist heavy races. All we're doing here is shuffling the deck and putting different faces under the wheel. Unless we're doing stat packs? It seems like a non-fix.
Basically, if you want the "big tough" races to be viable choices, you need to do something really significant to them. Because as it stands at the moment, its rather crap.
Unknown2010-11-17 16:29:51
QUOTE (Zarquan @ Nov 17 2010, 10:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nah, I'm just bitter about being so big and powerful, but I apparently missed the Golden Times. Monks half my might with no artifacts are more effective than me, and that's disheartening.
The gap there is much more an issue with how monks work than with races.
Tae'dae and Igasho might just need a flat damage/wounding bonus. The few points of extra STR they have compared to races with similar STR, but no balance malus doesn't help them that much - you may as well be krokani/orclach/taurian instead.
What will orclach need to make them good? Some are saying dex, others int/cha, but how much will those help, or would something else be better?
Unknown2010-11-17 16:37:32
Regarding nerfing humans-
I feel its a poor idea as well. Humans give every org a solid, well built and rounded fall back race in the event that changes to the game, ill conceived or otherwise, reduce their organization's race to a poor choice.
Particularly if the opposing org has access to a specializing race that will give them good stats and combat staying power, humans at least are reliable in their bag-o-stats effect. They provide a sort of playability insurance against design mistakes adversely impacting racial choices.
Alternately, we should leave the door open on racial changes, so we don't end up with another Merian/Mugwump situation for a number of years.
I feel its a poor idea as well. Humans give every org a solid, well built and rounded fall back race in the event that changes to the game, ill conceived or otherwise, reduce their organization's race to a poor choice.
Particularly if the opposing org has access to a specializing race that will give them good stats and combat staying power, humans at least are reliable in their bag-o-stats effect. They provide a sort of playability insurance against design mistakes adversely impacting racial choices.
Alternately, we should leave the door open on racial changes, so we don't end up with another Merian/Mugwump situation for a number of years.
Unknown2010-11-17 16:54:52
QUOTE (Vendetta Morendo @ Nov 17 2010, 11:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What will orclach need to make them good? Some are saying dex, others int/cha, but how much will those help, or would something else be better?
Not taking a hammer to the resist system at all, and shoring up Merians/Mugs/any other over-adversely afflicted races would have been a much better way to address this.
I mean, the complaints about Kephera largely stem from their resists- but if you crush the resists, should you also take an axe to illithoid stats? After all, people complain about their stats as well. Who's complaint is more valid? Whoever has the loudest forum mob at the time? That seems to be the real measure at times.
I still feel we're taking far too blunt an insturment to the task. Fixing a few races rather than making broad systemic changes that some elements of the game will like and others will hate is a lot of effort for a zero sum gain.
For Orclach specifically- all of the above? If they're losing the toughness they had, they'll need to be compensated by reducing their weaknesses (move int and cha up significantly). They've needed some dex for a while anyway. Or some mix of moderate improvements to all their stats- I mean, when Akui would shift to orclach, my health would often get lower in an absolute sense, but this was made up for with a mix of the regen and solid resists.
That's the sort of example I'm referring to when I say that these sort of broad changes are often asinine. They tend to have more consequeces than are rapidly containable, and often come about from some sort of mob-cry that will serve the purpose of the mob, however well-worded, but not really be an ultimately fair solution.
Unknown2010-11-17 17:06:44
So, to condense, might you suggest:
* Not adjusting resistance level % vales
* Not adjusting balance bonus/malus
* Maybe adjusting eq bonus/malus?
I don't think faelings need to become faster while tae'dae/igasho become slower warriors, but I think you will be just as hard pressed to make mugwumps good without returning some speed as you would to keep the tank races good without touching their resistance. Helping the races with eq bonuses that have been lacking wouldn't be a bad idea, and most of the races with eq maluses aren't exactly caster material as is.
* Not adjusting resistance level % vales
* Not adjusting balance bonus/malus
* Maybe adjusting eq bonus/malus?
I don't think faelings need to become faster while tae'dae/igasho become slower warriors, but I think you will be just as hard pressed to make mugwumps good without returning some speed as you would to keep the tank races good without touching their resistance. Helping the races with eq bonuses that have been lacking wouldn't be a bad idea, and most of the races with eq maluses aren't exactly caster material as is.
Unknown2010-11-17 17:10:01
If the problem is just mugwump, why not give them level 4 equilibrium, but with the previous numbers? That way, tae'dae and faeling both aren't affected.
Same goes for resistance and sipping. Why is there a limit at level 3? Wouldn't a wider range of effects allow for more balancing?
Eg. Keep Faeling at level 3 balance (15%), tae'dae at level 3 slower balance/equilibrium (15%), but boost mugwump to level 4 (20%).
Assuming that the changes to balance/equilibrium was meant for mugwump, with their test server level 3 bonus of 21%, it would end up the same.
Same goes for resistance and sipping. Why is there a limit at level 3? Wouldn't a wider range of effects allow for more balancing?
Eg. Keep Faeling at level 3 balance (15%), tae'dae at level 3 slower balance/equilibrium (15%), but boost mugwump to level 4 (20%).
Assuming that the changes to balance/equilibrium was meant for mugwump, with their test server level 3 bonus of 21%, it would end up the same.
Unknown2010-11-17 17:17:11
QUOTE (Vendetta Morendo @ Nov 17 2010, 12:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So, to condense, might you suggest:
* Not adjusting resistance level % vales
* Not adjusting balance bonus/malus
* Maybe adjusting eq bonus/malus?
I don't think faelings need to become faster while tae'dae/igasho become slower warriors, but I think you will be just as hard pressed to make mugwumps good without returning some speed as you would to keep the tank races good without touching their resistance. Helping the races with eq bonuses that have been lacking wouldn't be a bad idea, and most of the races with eq maluses aren't exactly caster material as is.
* Not adjusting resistance level % vales
* Not adjusting balance bonus/malus
* Maybe adjusting eq bonus/malus?
I don't think faelings need to become faster while tae'dae/igasho become slower warriors, but I think you will be just as hard pressed to make mugwumps good without returning some speed as you would to keep the tank races good without touching their resistance. Helping the races with eq bonuses that have been lacking wouldn't be a bad idea, and most of the races with eq maluses aren't exactly caster material as is.
No. I'm saying don't adjust resistance level percent values. Adjust mugs and merians specifically to address their issues, without lathering on systemic changes in what seems like just a waving of the consistency flag. Certainly they're all related on the larger scale of things, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be looked at independently either.
You can make merians and mugs tougher, which has really been their largest drawback. Remove vulnerabilities, and/or add a magical/physical resist(s). Increase stats.
Unknown2010-11-17 17:43:16
QUOTE (Furien @ Nov 16 2010, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You will be hard pressed to find 'high damage' anymore that isn't Fillin, Balestone/Shatterplex or a Bard. The value of high int is really ambiguous since DMP/stat scaling and is a bit harder to balance. Yes, I swear I'll post something more constructive in a second.
Any and all monks have the potential for high damage if and when they maximize the bonuses from the damage formula with poisons and affs and what not.
QUOTE (Zarquan @ Nov 17 2010, 11:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nah, I'm just bitter about being so big and powerful, but I apparently missed the Golden Times. Monks half my might with no artifacts are more effective than me, and that's disheartening.
Might doesn't reflect player skill whatsoever. Effectiveness is more so affected by player ability than player class, but I'm not going to disagree that monks have issues.
Unknown2010-11-17 19:04:58
Yes, I know I'm hardly a top-tier fighter by most people's standards, but I'm feeling more and more screwed by the numbers with every change. If Fillin and others are allowed to do (or tank) massive amounts of damage/afflictions, then why am I doing next to nothing by comparison? Not to mention all the hurdles a warrior has to overcome just to hit a person.
Okay, I'll go cry in my beer now, since it's not really a racial issue overall. Carry on.
Okay, I'll go cry in my beer now, since it's not really a racial issue overall. Carry on.
Rika2010-11-17 22:06:13
The easiest solution to the tank races losing their effectiveness is just to buff up their resistances up another level.
Unknown2010-11-17 22:08:44
QUOTE (rika @ Nov 17 2010, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The easiest solution to the tank races losing their effectiveness is just to buff up their resistances up another level.
At which point, we need to ask why we're bothering in the first place, hence Akui's criticisms.
