Had half a though of allowing them to +2 a stat at the cost of 5 points... meh
Race Stat Changes
Re: Race Stat Changes
No changes to humans?
Had half a though of allowing them to +2 a stat at the cost of 5 points... meh
Had half a though of allowing them to +2 a stat at the cost of 5 points... meh
Disclaimer: Any ideas I come up with may not even meet my approval. I am just posting an idea based on the topic I have just read.
I love sheep.
I love sheep.
Re: Race Stat Changes
daedroth wrote:No changes to humans?
Had half a though of allowing them to +2 a stat at the cost of 5 points... meh
I like it
Re: Race Stat Changes
The thing is humans are actually very balanced.
If you +2 a human you can, for example, make a nice priest as such:
10 20 22 20 20 11. 20 agi and 1213 HP.
Half elf with +1 end = 21 agi and 1038HP.
Human clearly superior here. You could already argue humans are better than half elves in most aspects. I think people just view humans as boring or somesuch, but statwise they are fine imo.
If you +2 a human you can, for example, make a nice priest as such:
10 20 22 20 20 11. 20 agi and 1213 HP.
Half elf with +1 end = 21 agi and 1038HP.
Human clearly superior here. You could already argue humans are better than half elves in most aspects. I think people just view humans as boring or somesuch, but statwise they are fine imo.
<Silhouette>
Re: Race Stat Changes
Folder wrote:The thing is humans are actually very balanced.
If you +2 a human you can, for example, make a nice priest as such:
10 20 22 20 20 11. 20 agi and 1213 HP.
Half elf with +1 end = 21 agi and 1038HP.
Human clearly superior here. You could already argue humans are better than half elves in most aspects. I think people just view humans as boring or somesuch, but statwise they are fine imo.
Give helf and extra allocation point and then itd be (or give them the +2 possibility as well
):human: 10 20 22 20 20 11 and 1213 HP. (1200 - 1225)
helf: 10 21 20 20 20 15 and 1150 HP. (1125 - 1175)
Which is: -63 HP on average, -75HP at worst to - 50HP at best.
With new HP system, 1END = 50HP difference.
So stat difference not too bad I think.
But helf would have a wee bit more mana and dodge with the human passives being better than helf passives and humans would have higher MR.
Disclaimer: Any ideas I come up with may not even meet my approval. I am just posting an idea based on the topic I have just read.
I love sheep.
I love sheep.
Re: Race Stat Changes
Kinda would set us back at this point I think. It cascades again - oh now human is too good so half elf needs to get upped, then elf is trash so it needs to get upped, now ling is useless, etc.
I just don't see the point when they are already very close statwise, imo.
I just don't see the point when they are already very close statwise, imo.
<Silhouette>
Re: Race Stat Changes
Humans should have a +1 two times(1 for each stat), not a +2 in one stat.
Re: Race Stat Changes
Dan wrote:Humans should have a +1 two times(1 for each stat), not a +2 in one stat.
I don't see a prob with that if it doesn't overshadow half elf or elf?
In guessing it would be 2 for first stat 5 for second stat?
Re: Race Stat Changes
Lateralus wrote:Dan wrote:Humans should have a +1 two times(1 for each stat), not a +2 in one stat.
I don't see a prob with that if it doesn't overshadow half elf or elf?
In guessing it would be 2 for first stat 5 for second stat?
It kinda shadows HE's, yeah.
They already get reduced cooldown timers by 15% which is alot to be honest and to me is a big thing in fights. Plus slightly lower fizzle (though I could see again upping this a tad) and only require 2 points for a +1. I don't think it would be fair to give them two +1's balance wise as I think ti makes HEs more crummy.
Then you gotta fix HEs.
Then you got to fix Elves.
if elves are modified we have already shown that they shadow Lings. So lings need to be changed. And DEs then too. It's a big issue.
They are getting a bonus using this new HP too just to state. Even if their HP isn't changed I'm pretty sure they benefit from it.
I.e.
19 21 20 13 20 12 would be an example char for HE with a +1
20 21 21 11 20 11 would be an example char of human with two +1s. being in END and AGI. So yeah youd have to give bonus to HE. But then HE would jump over elves. etc etc etc.
Re: Race Stat Changes
Dan wrote:Humans should have a +1 two times(1 for each stat), not a +2 in one stat.
Back this up with math, please. Not trying to be a dick but I'd like to see some examples of how this works and stays balanced without overshadowing other races.
Using my priest example let's compare the base stats of half elf and human, with no str and no chr.
half elf:
10 21 19 20 20 10, 6 points left
human:
10 20 20 20 20 10, 6 points left
They are very much equal here, 1 agi for 1 is the only tradeoff. I consider the racial bonuses very minor and not really influential on the decision of which race to choose.
Now, MY PREFERENCE is to +1 end on a half elf and that leaves you with this for a priest:
10 21 20 20 20 14
On a human with the ability to +2 2 stats we have 2 options.
1) +2 and both stats cost 2 points. This leaves us with +1 agi and +1 end:
10 21 21 20 20 12
2) After a single +1 (I am picking agi here, it does not matter for this argument)
10 21 20 20 20 14
This leaves us with 4 "dump" points. If you allow a 2nd +1 and it takes 4 points you can dump chr to 10 and have:
10 21 21 20 20 10.
If you make it cost more than 4 you have to ditch a wisdom or int point to increase end, something like:
10 21 21 20 19 10
If the 2nd +1 costs 2 points you have:
10 21 21 20 20 12
It is my opinion that humans would simply be better regardless of any of these options if you let them +1 2 stats. You could potentially let them +1 a 2nd stat for something like 8 points, but I feel as that point we're just reaching to try and justify the 2nd stat when it wasn't needed at all.
<Silhouette>
Re: Race Stat Changes
Ok looking at this again with completely fresh eyes.
Summary
The problem we're trying to solve is balance the races, as some combinations *seem* to be much better than others.
i.e. elemental elder, orc slayer
Ideally there'd be several viable race choices available for every class.
Ideally no race would be completely useless for a particular class.
I'm not aware of any tests that have been done to confirm racial imbalance, other than some limited attack simulation tests Nitehawk did a couple of months back between lings/orcs, saurians/orcs, which is where the agility stat tweak is coming from.
Other things to consider
The proposed agility change from 2% to 2.25% might solve some of these balance issues on its own.
The recent magic penetration change was effectively a bit of a nerf for higher intelligence spellcasters, and a buff for low intelligence spellcasters.
Some players are holding off creating new alts to level due to the uncertainty about what races will be good after the changes
Each character that's levelled may take a player 4-6 weeks on average, some people will only level 1 or 2 maximum level characters.
Many players will be angry/frustrated if the changes nerf their characters
Many players will be angry/frustrated if these changes cause more problems than they solve.
We aren't actually in a bad place at the moment for balance, and it's debatable whether we actually need many changes at all
Current proposal
Looking only at proposal 13
On immediate glance I dont think these proposed changes achieve what we were aiming for.
Proposal 13 nerfs some of the most popular races in the game, so this could lead to a big backlash from frustrated players/potentially a loss of players.
This appears to be a buff for orcs by nature of every other melee race getting a nerf. Orcs are already one of the better races for classes with attack multipliers.
This is due to their str being +2 higher than anyone else, and it is now paired with the joint highest HP in game after the proposed dwarf nerf.
These changes also don't do anything to address elementals allegedly being the superior elder class, although maybe this should be handled by druid formula changes rather than racial changes.
Anecdote vs fact
I do feel we've been approaching this from the wrong way, with these proposed stats being chosen by gut feel and anecdote which is shaped by our experiences with random chance in fights.
This is rather than working from the cold hard facts we can get from an attack simulator, as has been done before to try and balance agility, etc.
These changes would be better if they were based on a series of tests to see which races are the superior combinations at the moment.
Then using these results tweaks could be done to racial stats, racial traits, or class traits to try and hit a base line of what the races *should* be. Ideally you'd want to avoid player stat changes unless absolutely necessary.
i.e. orcs should be strong and endurant but don't dodge or hit as much as some more agile races.
If there was a thorough testing routine to check these changes were for the improvement of the game, then any potential changes would be a lot easier to swallow.
People would still have usable characters based on what they thought they were getting, and we'd have a healthier set of choices for classes.
Tests should be performed using typical character stat builds at the moment (including armour/weps), and should ideally cover the following areas:
Plain melee (not assassin,thief, barb, monk, knight)
Rogue multiplier melee (assassin, thief)
Continous hit melee (barb, monk)
Magic attack vs MR melee (gnome/elf/etc. vs dwarf/de/etc.)
Magic attack vs no-MR melee
Melee vs different priest races (a healer should be able to withstand 5-6 people attacking them at once, if a dwarf for example can withstand more then look at lowering 17 int heals, etc. if a human/half elf/elf/goblin/etc. has an advantage then look at tweaking this)
Class specific things should be considered at the same time due to the overall stat pool needed to make certain classes
i.e. are there multiple viable races that have the charisma and other stats needed for bards/rangers/knights? Are multiple elder races viable?
Tweaks might be better done through class based formulas, but it would still potentially have an affect on the overall stat pool of races and racial maximums.
If these tests aren't done then I think I'd rather stick with the existing stats than risk changing things for the sake of change.
These changes risk alienating a lot of our players and potentially don't even fix any of our perceived imbalance issues.
Many of the perceived imbalances at the moment might be better handled through tweaks to individual class formulas, rather than stat changes.
That is only if these perceived imbalances are backed up by the cold hard facts of the attack simulator.
Summary
The problem we're trying to solve is balance the races, as some combinations *seem* to be much better than others.
i.e. elemental elder, orc slayer
Ideally there'd be several viable race choices available for every class.
Ideally no race would be completely useless for a particular class.
I'm not aware of any tests that have been done to confirm racial imbalance, other than some limited attack simulation tests Nitehawk did a couple of months back between lings/orcs, saurians/orcs, which is where the agility stat tweak is coming from.
Other things to consider
The proposed agility change from 2% to 2.25% might solve some of these balance issues on its own.
The recent magic penetration change was effectively a bit of a nerf for higher intelligence spellcasters, and a buff for low intelligence spellcasters.
Some players are holding off creating new alts to level due to the uncertainty about what races will be good after the changes
Each character that's levelled may take a player 4-6 weeks on average, some people will only level 1 or 2 maximum level characters.
Many players will be angry/frustrated if the changes nerf their characters
Many players will be angry/frustrated if these changes cause more problems than they solve.
We aren't actually in a bad place at the moment for balance, and it's debatable whether we actually need many changes at all
Current proposal
Looking only at proposal 13
On immediate glance I dont think these proposed changes achieve what we were aiming for.
Proposal 13 nerfs some of the most popular races in the game, so this could lead to a big backlash from frustrated players/potentially a loss of players.
This appears to be a buff for orcs by nature of every other melee race getting a nerf. Orcs are already one of the better races for classes with attack multipliers.
This is due to their str being +2 higher than anyone else, and it is now paired with the joint highest HP in game after the proposed dwarf nerf.
These changes also don't do anything to address elementals allegedly being the superior elder class, although maybe this should be handled by druid formula changes rather than racial changes.
Anecdote vs fact
I do feel we've been approaching this from the wrong way, with these proposed stats being chosen by gut feel and anecdote which is shaped by our experiences with random chance in fights.
This is rather than working from the cold hard facts we can get from an attack simulator, as has been done before to try and balance agility, etc.
These changes would be better if they were based on a series of tests to see which races are the superior combinations at the moment.
Then using these results tweaks could be done to racial stats, racial traits, or class traits to try and hit a base line of what the races *should* be. Ideally you'd want to avoid player stat changes unless absolutely necessary.
i.e. orcs should be strong and endurant but don't dodge or hit as much as some more agile races.
If there was a thorough testing routine to check these changes were for the improvement of the game, then any potential changes would be a lot easier to swallow.
People would still have usable characters based on what they thought they were getting, and we'd have a healthier set of choices for classes.
Tests should be performed using typical character stat builds at the moment (including armour/weps), and should ideally cover the following areas:
Plain melee (not assassin,thief, barb, monk, knight)
Rogue multiplier melee (assassin, thief)
Continous hit melee (barb, monk)
Magic attack vs MR melee (gnome/elf/etc. vs dwarf/de/etc.)
Magic attack vs no-MR melee
Melee vs different priest races (a healer should be able to withstand 5-6 people attacking them at once, if a dwarf for example can withstand more then look at lowering 17 int heals, etc. if a human/half elf/elf/goblin/etc. has an advantage then look at tweaking this)
Class specific things should be considered at the same time due to the overall stat pool needed to make certain classes
i.e. are there multiple viable races that have the charisma and other stats needed for bards/rangers/knights? Are multiple elder races viable?
Tweaks might be better done through class based formulas, but it would still potentially have an affect on the overall stat pool of races and racial maximums.
If these tests aren't done then I think I'd rather stick with the existing stats than risk changing things for the sake of change.
These changes risk alienating a lot of our players and potentially don't even fix any of our perceived imbalance issues.
Many of the perceived imbalances at the moment might be better handled through tweaks to individual class formulas, rather than stat changes.
That is only if these perceived imbalances are backed up by the cold hard facts of the attack simulator.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests