Race Stat Changes

[JadeFalcon]

Also @nitehawk: Would it be hard for you to get the % distribution of 25er races?
i.e, x% of 25ers are saurian, y% are elves and so forth.

This would enable us to understand if there is any given race that is materially underplayed, instead of us trying to guess based on what we "feel".

[Eld]

Just partied with some people from various clans and tried to get a discussion going on this to get their feedback, partially because of what Anthriel said above and the lack of people posting here on such an important topic.

few notes:

They seemed to think the issue is with the formulas not being balanced, but there were some inconsistencies with what they were saying
i.e. one moment they said agi was broken, that's why orcs and dwarves were good. but then they said removing 1 str from orcs and 1 end from dwarves would make them useless.

I was arguing that flattening the curve with racial stats and lessening the extremes would make it easier to balance the formulas.


They also asked who in theory should win the most out of a fight between a goblin and an orc, i argued that an orc should win slightly more often otherwise orcs have no purpose.
whereas goblins should be good at melee but also be able to fight magic users. Orcs on the other hand should not be able to fight magic users.


Discussion of cookie cutter classes came up, elemental elders were mentioned. orc slayers were mentioned
There was a mention of human slayers being useable in rok, i said that was only due to AC being broken in rok, and actually disputed human slayers were any good at all.

I said i think we're very close to balancing the melee classes if we were to +1 end dark elves and -1 str orcs and -1 end dwarves.
In theory you could have 6 races that are roughly balanced for melee, with some being slightly worse but having better MR to compensate. (sauris, drakes, goblins, dark elves, orcs, dwarves)

I did also say magic users would need considering for balance, and i haven't even considered bards/rangers/druids.

in theory with magic users, gnomes should do most damage/heals but be more fragile, other races might be less fragile (agi/hp) but do less damage/heals

elders are a tricky one to balance, but maybe -1 wis on elementals and adjust the overall stat points available.
In theory the "all round" races should be good at classes that require several stats, ie. guardians, druids

[Hanibal]

My understanding on this is we are looking for balance, lessening one or more races hps and adding more to another isnt a fix, just my opinion.

MR needs to be balanced as per the casters INT, i dont play a caster myself but to kill a couple mini bosses and Ive noticed it blasts for a lot of dmg with 21 int, vs a saurian it would eat it up as it should. Horcs have a natural resist it seems to certain spells, ie: FF and sap but are still chanter fodder, which again makes sense, comes down to race.

Nobody's saying you have to play a horc or saurian slayer, they just seem to be the most popular and if you can play a slayer properly in this game you pretty much win 80% of your battles.

I guess it comes down to skill level and proper class/race choices?

Every class and race should have its str and weakness's, im thinking the only thing that needs tweeking is dodge, MR (racially), blast str and hp or dmg adjustments to balance everything.

Edit:

Maybe the classes should look something like this:

Melee
Cav - natural dodge low hitrate high dmg
Zerker - low dodge high hit high dmg
slayer - high dodge low hit rate high dmg
Ninja - high dodge high hit low dmg
Ranger - high dodge high hit low dmg
Druid - high dodge high hit low dmg

[anthriel]

Just a clarificational reply to Eld (and somewhat JF and Lat) to make clear that I am not saying Silh are all in agreement or trying to influence for their benefit etc (I was merely pointing out to NH that he has large blindspots in his information about his own game if he's only relying on MBs/discord/staff as his sources) ... My main discouragement to stop posting suggestions was NH's comment that revealed to me that he doesn't really seem to care if ppl leave his game cos he will just aim to replace them win new players from advertising... Unless I have misunderstood his comment, then I feel this to be an arrogant/complacent attitude for a game developer that is eventually likely to prove fatal for his game. Why should I bother wasting time to think and suggest things to help player retention if the game developer himself doesn't care about retaining players (except for maybe the most vocal ones within his circle of friends)?

I've said it before and I'll say it for the last time. Games grow and players keep playing cos the game makes them happy. I know you obviously can't keep everyone happy, but I can't understand why you would rather have players quit than to do something that would keep lots of ppl happy (eg have some way to change races especially when dealing with complex rebalancing and it is not difficult to do), especially if it would accomplish lots for the goodwill for the game with its players. And implementing a way to change race as a ongoing end-game feature actually gives ppl something to strive for in the end-game and a way to undo costly mistakes etc - which solves a lot of the "player goodwill" problems for future rebalancing issues.

I still don't know what NH's reasons for "never" wanting to consider it are ... but it was his blasé comments about simply replacing players (rather than striving to retain players) which clearly signalled to me that we differ ideologically .... And if this is the case then no amount of me posting more suggestions or joining staff or whatever is likely to make any difference. Therefore I feel that all I can say is to reiterate my "good luck to EO" and join the silent/unvocal masses in the less-invested/more-disconnected portion of the playerbase. Peace and good luck.

PS - I disagree with Lat's flawed logic that "classes get rebalanced but we don't offer class changes therefore we shouldn't offer race changes". The reason is because most ppl approach an RPG thinking "I want to create the best possible Sorc/Assy/etc, what race would help do that?"..... Unless they are hardcore RPers they probably aren't thinking "I want to create the best possible gnome/elf/etc, what class is best for that?". In short, the racial choice is a means to an end whereas the class (i.e the desired end itself) is not a choice that ppl (even newbs) are likely to make a mistake on.

[NiteHawk]

I'm not sure why you would adopt such a stance re never allowing race changes, especially in the case of allowing some end-game way for new players to correct character creation mistakes made when they were new (perhaps you have good reasons you havent explained) ... In any case I wanted to give you feedback that the perceived attitude behind your above comment seems discouraging. I've been suggesting all along that EO's issue isnt as much "player attraction through advertising" as it is "player retention through game dynamics" (which you largely have more control over than advertising). But basically it seems to me like you are saying you dont give a damn about retaining players, you just care about replacing them with new ones (who may then quit anyway later)....which seems rather short sighted for a game developer and doesnt really inspire me to go grind out some more 25ers or interact with new players who are likely part of a revolving door.

Because being able to change races would dynamically make everyone cooker cutters and set everyone to a set few races. I don't think it would be fun or good at all if everyone was the same. Everyone would abuse it, specially vets, to change their characters into more useful ones. I also don't see these minor changes, even if we go with the first proposal being a reason to say everyone gets a free respec. The races are basically the same, except better at what they were geared for. Some people will find that X or Y might be better in X or Y situations, then they should level said char too. Giving a racial respec to everyone pretty much will probably shutdown any sort of leveling that still remains, too, etc. Someone makes a DE, realizes that lings more what they wanted because they wanted more dodge rate lets say, I get that, but that shouldn't warrant a racial respec. I can understand if the actual races were being changed into different categories (I.E. as an extreme, re-balancing saurians so they are weaker but have MR would be a completely different category) but I again don't see that here with any of the proposed changes. The most of who will benefit from this are vets, not new players too.

I do care about the players, and I have been working with players and accommodating them as much as I can. I often do get says on what needs to be done on everything, and this is no different. I am simply saying if some players are lost, which will happen in any game that attempts to balance, than it is what it is. Do I want this? Obviously not. You cannot make everyone happy when it comes to balance though as you have seen yourself. It's going to be down to me after we discuss on what needs to be changed and I know many have different ideas. However in same cases such as being able to change race, I don't think it would be a good idea in the long run. I 'want' members, and I want people to obviously stay playing.

Also, the forums and discord are not exactly representative of the entire community who play your game. The large majority of players active on forums and EO discord tavern seem to me to be from 1 guild. The large majority of active staff (at the time of this post) appear to be from 1 guild. Many of these players seem to be from an "in-crowd" community of close-knit Rok alumni. I suspect therefore the large majority of your interactions/surveys of "player opinion" come from a particular sub-community of players within the larger community (and you appear to give the suggestions of these players more weight/consideration). I have tried to be a voice that thinks outside this box to help EO with fresh/different ideas, but i tire of what seems to usually be a fruitless/unwanted task.... And your above "i dont really care if ppl quit" sentiments make me feel that although you have created a game that is a big improvement over Rok, it still has Rok's unhelpful feel of a game that is designed largely to cater for the gratification of the "in-crowd"/staff rather than for the gratification of the entire playerbase.

No, they aren't, so get them to post! I was simply making a point that a lot of discord members disagreed. I did not say that they represent everyone, only that there was a discussion about it. I however, wanted people to POST here so we can discuss it. Otherwise it's obviously hard to make opinions without people giving them. If you have friends who agree with you in game, then POST it. I've linked this in a bcast before too in game. We can't formulate stuff if people don't contribute, and no matter one each person who replies here is just that, one person in a bigger pool.

I'm not sure who you are referring to, Eld I assume? Actually he and I have been disagreeing on a lot of things with these race changes. I agree that there should be more than what he wants. Two of the three current proposals I would assume he disagrees with pretty strongly. If you were referring to a group of players being IG or on a 3rd party chat client, I don't relate to them at all or know who really is in any of the guilds/groups. I'm not really close to anyone and I keep it that way to prevent drama, and to attempt to be fair on others. Kind of like the warden job, but on an admin level. I think you got the wrong idea about 'people quitting' though, so apologies for that though. I did try to clarify it though. I do want people to play, obviously.

There is a need for more information specially on the char creator, but it's more of a how general points should be spent and some sample builds kind of thing that needs to be shown.

My understanding on this is we are looking for balance, lessening one or more races hps and adding more to another isnt a fix, just my opinion.

MR needs to be balanced as per the casters INT, i dont play a caster myself but to kill a couple mini bosses and Ive noticed it blasts for a lot of dmg with 21 int, vs a saurian it would eat it up as it should. Horcs have a natural resist it seems to certain spells, ie: FF and sap but are still chanter fodder, which again makes sense, comes down to race.

Nobody's saying you have to play a horc or saurian slayer, they just seem to be the most popular and if you can play a slayer properly in this game you pretty much win 80% of your battles.

I guess it comes down to skill level and proper class/race choices?

Every class and race should have its str and weakness's, im thinking the only thing that needs tweeking is dodge, MR (racially), blast str and hp or dmg adjustments to balance everything.

There is no natural resists to any spells, that is incorrect (obviously theres a slight racial bonus but that doesn't change based on spell). Lower wisdom does have shorter durations, but that is for any spell. If you have high wisdom and sap/etc goes through, it takes longer to wear off. So low wis, easier time to pierce but shorter duration.High wis, harder to pierce and longer duration. However, the pierce chance is the same as ALL other spells.

The whole what classes though should be another discussion. I do agree with you about strengths and weaknesses, but classes are a different monster to tackle.

From what I have been hearing the actual pierce rate isn't so bad now, but could do with little more tweaking. I'm not sure though why it's not exactly a fix. To me you're still looking at 960HP vs 1250HP which seems still like a good difference when it comes to the lower HP vs higher HP no?

Obviously de/lings/etc will never be as good as a saurian in physical combat which is understandable based on stats, but the MR of lings is obviously what gives them a better chance at surviving a mix or all spell casters. I don't really think the issue is the MR rates right now though, thats not what everyone has been really saying. It isn't an issue with overall survivability in PVE and PVP where getting double tapped is a thing with any of the lower HP races. It shouldn't be a 'super easy thing' to do. Granted, it should be a possibility and a benefit of using a fighter race, but pretty much the reason in 6vs6 you go for the higher END races is simply for not being killed instantly. I don't think it still makes them better at groups, but it helps a good deal so that they are actually usable races in PVP groups too.

Also @nitehawk: Would it be hard for you to get the % distribution of 25er races?
i.e, x% of 25ers are saurian, y% are elves and so forth.

This would enable us to understand if there is any given race that is materially underplayed, instead of us trying to guess based on what we "feel".

It is kind of a pain in the ass right now. I will have to see about it but I am literally doing it through text file searches etc. coping the files found, then doing it on those files and making a smaller search. It's not fun. I need a way to eventually get statistics easily.

I was arguing that flattening the curve with racial stats and lessening the extremes would make it easier to balance the formulas

I kind of agree with flattening the curve but I think we can go a little more for balance on lings and whatnot than what you say. I think the 2nd prop on the sheet at least would be a start, or a mix of the 2nd and 3rd. Still waiting on more feedback though.

[Lateralus]

If I had to go with a proposal I'd say the top half of 2 and bottom half of 3. I don't think orc and dwarf need to lose their power stats but could see them with less mr. They are already going to take an agi nerf once agi counts more. I think the 12 wis on orc is a good idea and removing the -10 spell pen and maybe even default less resistance on dwarf would be good again 23end and 20mr means they simply can't lose to a caster.

As for the top half I think it looks good but I'm not sure why elf would get an int point. They already have +1 end and +1agi on gnome which is a pretty big deal imo. With int no longer counting towards pen gnomes basically just have a tad more damage atm and a lot less defense. Yea they have higher wis but above 20 wis and a caster class doesn't seem to be a huge deal tbh your as good at 21 as you are 22. If you really wanna give elf another int I think you gotta give gnome a agi or something idk. Yes I understand a lot of casters are gnomes but that's about all they are good for imo. And after the pen change they lost their biggest selling point over elves. Elves work for a lot of classes while gnomes right now are a step below elves as casters and a few below elves as everything else (healers and any physical) giving them an extra agi on top of int might open them up to better brigands slayers druids etc.

Otherwise I think I agree with the rest.

[NiteHawk]

If I had to go with a proposal I'd say the top half of 2 and bottom half of 3. I don't think orc and dwarf need to lose their power stats but could see them with less mr. They are already going to take an agi nerf once agi counts more. I think the 12 wis on orc is a good idea and removing the -10 spell pen and maybe even default less resistance on dwarf would be good again 23end and 20mr means they simply can't lose to a caster.

As for the top half I think it looks good but I'm not sure why elf would get an int point. They already have +1 end and +1agi on gnome which is a pretty big deal imo. With int no longer counting towards pen gnomes basically just have a tad more damage atm and a lot less defense. Yea they have higher wis but above 20 wis and a caster class doesn't seem to be a huge deal tbh your as good at 21 as you are 22. If you really wanna give elf another int I think you gotta give gnome a agi or something idk. Yes I understand a lot of casters are gnomes but that's about all they are good for imo. And after the pen change they lost their biggest selling point over elves. Elves work for a lot of classes while gnomes right now are a step below elves as casters and a few below elves as everything else (healers and any physical) giving them an extra agi on top of int might open them up to better brigands slayers druids etc.

Otherwise I think I agree with the rest.

Spell pen is already removed on dwarves since 1.6.1.6. You need to make sure you don't shatter what separates a dwarf and HO too though. Maybe defaulting the spell penetration but regardless 20wis is pretty high in general and race bonuses bar goblins don't make a huge impact.

For the first proposal:
gnomes 16 21 17 23 22 20
vs
elves 18 22 18 21 21 22

is probably okay, but then look at lings with the changes vs elves.

des 20 22 19 20 20 16
vs
lings 18 23 18 20 20 22
vs
elves 18 22 18 21 21 22

Yeah it's one less int/wis for an extra agi. I dunno how useful itis. It might be OK but yeah. Then you got DEs which are fairly good too. I just feel like elves don't have anything special there, but to me they are very similar. The 22 int was more of a

---

For the 3rd proposal its simple:
gnomes 16 21 18 23 22 20
vs
elves 18 22 18 21 21 22

Aka they would be useless shadowed gnomes. If you give gnomes +1 end, you need to give something to elves to change them. thats why changing gnomes is a problem. If you add to a couple races, you need to rebalance the lot otherwise its not worth it for some races.

I made a 4th proposal based on your stuff here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

Again none of those are set in stone, just making them cause they spark ideas/says. but I feel like DEs are a little better then Elves if you give them the +1 though lat, +1 end and +1 str, -1 wis/int. I'd say elves are shadowed in prop 4. Thats why I was trying to make them a in between gnomes thing.

[Lateralus]

Makes sense about the de overshadowing elf if elf doesn't get anything and de got end. in that case I'd say de would be fine with maybe just a pool stat or something instead of an +1end. De really are not that bad off I think giving them an extra pool stat or so might open them up to more balance play like pally without any overshadowing elf if they got an extra end.

Yea maybe a lower base resistance for dwarf would help the situation A bit.

Anyways I think I like proposal 4 the best I feel like it addresses the issues pretty well and also keeps changes to a minimum. Less for people to complain about and we know what we have right now is pretty close anyways why change a ton of stuff. I think doing less is more here.

[Eld]

Going to look at this from another angle, and compare the *current* strengths and weaknesses of the different races as i see it as an active player, if i was looking to make a new character today, as the races stand.


Dark Elf - Before very recently, this was one of the 2 realistic options for a melee fighter with MR (along with dwarves), since the very recent buff to goblin MR dark elves are now inferior in pretty much every way
Summary: I would not currently make any dark elf alt, except possibly a thief.

Drakeblood - strong melee option if you don't care about MR, similar to saurian, you make the choice between end/str.
The high Chr also gives you the option for a more combat orientated ranger (possibly also suitable for bard, i haven't researched how much chr affects bards, so i don't know if this is viable)
Summary: Drakeblood is a very strong option for melee characters and rangers (my stalker is a drake)


Saurian - strong melee option if you don't care about MR, similar to drakeblood, you make the choice between end/str
Summary: Very strong option for melee characters (my zerker is a saurian)

Dwarf - High HP, one of the few melee races with decent MR, but has a huge str gap to Orc which is very pronounced on classes with multipliers (slayers/zerkers) especially as these classes have negative MR, which negates one of the main selling points of a dwarf.
End is very high, and along with 17 int this currently allows for a high hp guard/priest.
I've also heard of dwarf elders, but i've heard these arent very good in practice other than for very high HP in bear mode (1500?)

Summary: I wish I hadn't made my slayer dwarf, i am relatively happy with my paladin though


Elemental - Widely seen as the standout race for elders, some people dispute this and claim elf/gnome are better but there isn't much evidence for this.
Elementals also provide options for clerics/chanters if you want a high MP pool for no mana events, however their low agi makes this a tough choice.

Summary: I'm very happy with my elemental elder, but i wouldn't make any other class an elemental.


Elf - I've heard many people previously claim that Elves made more rounded mages than gnomes, due to the extra hp. I've also heard they make good elders [sources needed]. They are also a good option for rangers/bards.

I don't have much of an option on elves as I haven't made one yet. I'd quite like to switch my death mage from gnome to elf to see if he's less fragile.

Summary: seem to be popular for several classes, and a bit less fragile than gnomes


Gnome - If you wanna zap lizards/orcs/drakes with high spell damage then this is the race to use. Satisfyingly high magic damage, but recently were nerfed when spell penetration was no longer linked to Int.
It's hard to see how this change will shake out.

Seem to be too fragile to use for any other class, though some people seem to like them as druids or clerics.

Summary: My gnome chanter was awesome, i need further comparison with other chanter races to see if this is still the case.


Goblin - the new "go to" choice for a melee class with MR. Low str is a bit of a downside, but good agi/end/MR helps a lot. Low str probably means they would still be bad on classes with damage multipliers.
With 17 Int they are also a strong choice for clerics/paladins due to the good agi/end.
Potentially also a good choice for brigands if/when trap disarms are introduced, due to their anti-poison traits

Summary: My brigand's backstabs are weak as duck's piss with 19 str, but they seem to be useful for many classes at the moment. They now shit all over dark elves.


Half Elf - Solid choice for classes such as priest/guardian and now chanters after the change to spell penetration.
Potentially also good choice for rangers/bards
Would be nice if they made good druids, but unsure how they would do at present.

Summary: My main is a half elf priest. I used to wish he was human for higher end, but hopefully the changes to agi make me stop wishing for a race change.


Human - Solid choice for classes such as priest/guardian and maybe chanter after the change to spell penetration. Very similar to half elf in many aspects, with the choice between str/end for humans and an extra agi point in half elves.
The lower chr means they're not as viable for rangers/bards.
Would be nice if they made good druids, but unsure how they would do at present.

Summary: Potentially 21 end with 20 agi and 20 int makes for a strong caster.


Halfling - Low str and low end make this race currently really bad for pretty much every class except maybe bards and rangers.
Their higher agi doesn't seem to save them in any instances.
Other people seem slightly less biased against halflings but i think they're trash at present

Summary: I wouldn't use a halfling for anything except maybe a bard at present. I might be unfairly biased but i don't think i am.


Half Orcs - High str and high end makes this race awesome for classes with attack multipliers. 25 str backstabs seem to land more often than you'd think and are devastating in PVP.
The low agi doesn't seem to harm them too much, but maybe this will change with the agi rebalancing?

Summary: I wish my slayer was an orc, but i made it a shitty dwarf. Woe is me.







Summary of summaries:
Looking at the above i think the 3 most obvious changes are:

- look at ways of improving lings (+end and an extra racial trait, such as extra mana regen, or extra chance to dodge, or a chance to land a crit hit)
- dark elves (extra end or str so they're similar to goblins but different)
- do some mass testing on elemental elders and see if they really are superior to other combinations, if they are look at ways this could be tweaked. Potentially less wis?


Other than these 3 changes, other changes that might be worth looking at:

-look at if gnomes are now underpowered after the recent magic penetration changes
-look at if 25 str on orcs is overpowered compared to other races
-look at if 23 end on dwarves is overpowered, but if this is changed make sure they either get 22 str or that orcs are nerfed in some way so the gap between the two races doesn't grow even bigger than it is now.
-look at ways to make elementals viable for other classes


-consider adding a new race that's like the "orc of magic casters"? higher hp, high int, very low agi.
This might be a horrific change because it could just outlast all the low MR melee and screw everything up.

[NiteHawk]

Stuff

22 str dwarves with 22 end might be an option. How would people feel about that? Would be ok IMO I think but also might over step other races, dunno, need to look at it. There kinda like then high end/str but with wis.

The debuff to goblins helps though, Goblins vs DE, you get more allocation points in so I think it works out too.

Brigs with a bow do around 3.5x damage.

Lings need something and I still think its more END. With the AGI changes and end, eh, make them viable in 1vs1 or 1vs2 situations which makes good for certain events too. still Saurians are gonna sweep the floor cause they have high AGI too really, and half orcs always can get lucky anyways which funks them due to their such high damage. Maybe they need a racial bonus on top just dunno yet what. Or more agi, or whatever.