chips LL wrote:

Drizzt wrote:
ps. call me a plain tool then barney.. that might be ok for now but things will get boring with everyone having the same skill set

What so you mean you'll have to use tactics and skill to get the better of people? instead of having 100 extra skillpoints and beserk? - my idea is the same as most of the shards out there and the official OSI servers - except for the class ball - which will add class abilities.

Also they wont all have the same skill set, thats the point, they'd all have the same skill CAP, someone might have parry, someone might have poison, someone might have 50 tactics and 50 anatomy - but they could choose, and that choice would be the determining factor whether or not you'd thrape in battle, be a out and out warrior, be a dex warrior, be a poison warrior - some would fair better against different types of foe and vice versa.

Also you barely even move from the bank so you dont count

lmao but be honest peopel will all be the same except a few people like venom.. but classes only could be more diverse by the races,, so i am for more diversity and nah i hunt all the time now LOl thats all i do when im on,... no one to talk to at the bank

_________________
king of the run on sentence.

People would all be the same? what a load of bollocks, maybe if the shard population stays at 4, quite possibly.

I know what my template would be if we could have a regular idea implemented

Fencing
Tactics
Anatomy
Healing
Parry
Magic Resist
Magery

I'd have a gm alchemist poisoner who would DP exceptional Kryss's for him and i'd be a dexxer fencer who chugged like feck on pots and used his magery for cures and heals and the odd small spell.

OR

Swordsmanship
Tactics
Anatomy
Healing
Magic resist
Magery
Eval int

More magery based no parry so uses one handed swords weps, both have thier advantages and disadvantages - thats the game

so basicly you would be a war mage........................

thats cool!

so different from a tank! its amazing!

_________________
king of the run on sentence.

I haven't really spoken on this issue in the whole time it's been thrown around - BUT here is my 2 cents:

(and for the purpose of this discussion, I'm simply talking about Vampire vs Human)

There was ALREADY a penalty for choosing vampire over human: namely, that you could not be proficient in magery as a vampire. Meaning that you had to run everywhere, or use the rune chamber (or sanctuary to your home).
Humans had the advantage that they could choose MAGERY as one of their skills.

Now once upon a time my only fighting character was a vampire warrior - it was great, hack and bash, archer the mages etc.
But Vampire warriors were by no means indestructable...

Had someone chosen to make a HUMAN warrior, well - more fool them! Simply because they were limited in their allocation of skill points - and would most likely have to forfeit something useful like parry.
However, if a vampire wanted to be a mage - more fool them! Because they couldn't wear anything that offered protection...

The idea was that vampires made better warriors. For mine, this is consistent with the ideas of roleplaying etc.

I decided that I wanted to be able to handle a different set of weapons, so I made a second character - a HUMAN - but I didn't choose a warrior (would have been more fool me) - I chose NOT to take up archery and instead take MAGERY (the clear and obvious advantage that humans have).
With this skill set I soon developed a "tank mage" that could more than hold his own in a fight - even with a fully fledged vampire warrior who used the skill of archery.

There was a penalty to the vampire race: no magery - the human could take it, I did, and was able to slay the vampires.

It wasn't completely 1-sided, a strong vampire warrior and a strong human tank mage were equally matched, and generally speaking, whoever "drove" better, would win a fight.

When races were taken away and new players sought my advice on what to do with their human, I said "NO" to the warrior build and "YES" to the tank mage build. Why?
Because the CLEAR advantage that a new human could garner over an existing Vampire was in the skill of magery (which vampires could not have - it was the penalty to the vampire race...)

To start drawing some sort of conclucions from my ramblings:

1) Removing archery from the vampires as a 'penalty' was not a good move - yes, it might have made it possible to draw some sort of equity between humans and vampires when it comes to warriors - but what about when it comes to mages? Looking at the current tables, it seems human mages have an immense advantage over racial mages...
Face the facts, no matter how carefully you pore over the statistics and skillsets, there is generally going to end up being a 'best build' - and people will then head towards that.
The beauty of Obsidian was that there was actually some equality in fights between a mage, warrior and tank mage - PROVIDED you picked the right builds.

2) The vampire race stone was the problem, not the fact that they could GM all fighting skills. Remove bezerk, and make vampires "undead" in that they take double damage from silver weapons, and SUDDENLY there is a reason to choose a human warrior under the old system (but suffer when PvPing a mage) OR take a vampire, but fear the tank mage with his silver sword...

I think it would have been better to slightly tweak what we had - and Bob you KNOW I've always been there to offer sane suggestions if you wanted them. Taking archery away seems to render a vampire warrior obsolete and unable to hunt the harder monsters (unless you plan to make parry supremely powerful?) - how can a vampire warrior possibly stand toe to toe with an Ogre Lord? It's hard enough running around and shooting arrows at them...

I agree that some balance was needed - but surely removal of bezerk and double damage from silver weapons would have done the trick?

_______

I always say the harder thing to do in life is admit that other people might have a valid point. It's ok to make mistakes, it's how we respond to them that matters.

_________________

What he said ^^

_________________

I have a question befor i ask it i would like to say i mean no disrespest to any of our vets at all. I wasnt around for races they were disabled befor i came. So it seams to me its more about the time put in to a character than archery. So is it the time or the archery or the vet points built up over the years. Becasue isnt it just as simple to go human? I know youll lose some things but isnt that what helps you chose between human and vamp. And balances theam out. Thats they way i understood it or am i all wrong about the balance thing.

not being able to do magery didnt mean shit. how can you call it a penalty when you would never use the skill. not being able to recall rofl.


if you dont think parry is powerful, go human like i have and see how bad it sucks without it.

shit is more balanced than you might think. try making a few other chars and see how bad they suck.

truth is, human has the most potential it looks like, but the loss of the extra skill points is really presenting a problem now because of skills like anatomy and tactics that cant be avoided.

and dont just try on your noobs that have no skills try a true finished char and see how hard it is to balance the gmed skills with a human cap. if it seems ok, well then wtf why not just be human. you want to be a cool vamp ? then you cant be cap free like a human. dont see a problem its basically, we want our perfect chars back, but they went and balanced things so now we have to take the good with the bad on all builds.

still pretty fun i been playing a lot lately. well a lot for me.


and barney that quote wasnt from me, chips said that you drunken brit.

_________________
LOV FOR LIFE

Im agreeing with oldman on this one, because on my human tank i could still rape vamp warriors on the old system, hell i even beat 2 vamps 2v1.. but they were pretty noobie >< but really the point is the "warrior" class of a vamp isnt really even a well rounded warrior without the archery anymore.
I've always wondered why silver weps didnt seem to do more to vamps and i think that would help balance too, and even add more of that "roleplaying relevance" that you like so much Bob.
I want you to look at your current race system, because i have already made *THE PERFECT CHARACTER* which will probably end up being the norm if things continue this way.
On the note of bezerk being taken away, i disagree with that, but maybe take a different skill away, like their invis... thats basically just handing them GM hiding.
Because the only reason you took Archery away from vamps was because they had SO much more extra stuff than humans, how about instead of taking something they should have away (archery), you take one of their existing extra skills (invis for example)
The game is really alot more fun and alot more strategic with archery on vamps. And you cant really accuse me of wanting my perfect race chars back because ALL of my chars are human.

A vamp warrior tank...ohhhhh...I think I found my new character build...I mean...2 skills being disabled is a bit much, so it stands to reason that one of the 2 would be re-enabled.....

oldman wrote:I haven't really spoken on this issue in the whole time it's been thrown around - BUT here is my 2 cents:

(and for the purpose of this discussion, I'm simply talking about Vampire vs Human)

There was ALREADY a penalty for choosing vampire over human: namely, that you could not be proficient in magery as a vampire. Meaning that you had to run everywhere, or use the rune chamber (or sanctuary to your home).
Humans had the advantage that they could choose MAGERY as one of their skills.

Now once upon a time my only fighting character was a vampire warrior - it was great, hack and bash, archer the mages etc.
But Vampire warriors were by no means indestructable...

Had someone chosen to make a HUMAN warrior, well - more fool them! Simply because they were limited in their allocation of skill points - and would most likely have to forfeit something useful like parry.
However, if a vampire wanted to be a mage - more fool them! Because they couldn't wear anything that offered protection...

The idea was that vampires made better warriors. For mine, this is consistent with the ideas of roleplaying etc.

I decided that I wanted to be able to handle a different set of weapons, so I made a second character - a HUMAN - but I didn't choose a warrior (would have been more fool me) - I chose NOT to take up archery and instead take MAGERY (the clear and obvious advantage that humans have).
With this skill set I soon developed a "tank mage" that could more than hold his own in a fight - even with a fully fledged vampire warrior who used the skill of archery.

There was a penalty to the vampire race: no magery - the human could take it, I did, and was able to slay the vampires.

It wasn't completely 1-sided, a strong vampire warrior and a strong human tank mage were equally matched, and generally speaking, whoever "drove" better, would win a fight.

When races were taken away and new players sought my advice on what to do with their human, I said "NO" to the warrior build and "YES" to the tank mage build. Why?
Because the CLEAR advantage that a new human could garner over an existing Vampire was in the skill of magery (which vampires could not have - it was the penalty to the vampire race...)

To start drawing some sort of conclucions from my ramblings:

1) Removing archery from the vampires as a 'penalty' was not a good move - yes, it might have made it possible to draw some sort of equity between humans and vampires when it comes to warriors - but what about when it comes to mages? Looking at the current tables, it seems human mages have an immense advantage over racial mages...
Face the facts, no matter how carefully you pore over the statistics and skillsets, there is generally going to end up being a 'best build' - and people will then head towards that.
The beauty of Obsidian was that there was actually some equality in fights between a mage, warrior and tank mage - PROVIDED you picked the right builds.

2) The vampire race stone was the problem, not the fact that they could GM all fighting skills. Remove bezerk, and make vampires "undead" in that they take double damage from silver weapons, and SUDDENLY there is a reason to choose a human warrior under the old system (but suffer when PvPing a mage) OR take a vampire, but fear the tank mage with his silver sword...

I think it would have been better to slightly tweak what we had - and Bob you KNOW I've always been there to offer sane suggestions if you wanted them. Taking archery away seems to render a vampire warrior obsolete and unable to hunt the harder monsters (unless you plan to make parry supremely powerful?) - how can a vampire warrior possibly stand toe to toe with an Ogre Lord? It's hard enough running around and shooting arrows at them...

I agree that some balance was needed - but surely removal of bezerk and double damage from silver weapons would have done the trick?

_______

I always say the harder thing to do in life is admit that other people might have a valid point. It's ok to make mistakes, it's how we respond to them that matters.

Best post i have ever read. I said something like that a long time ago but i could not quite cover it the way you worded it Oldman. And Drizzt if you think not being able to recall is a major set back talk to Duck. When he was red he used to have to run everywhere. He would get to a fight long after it was over.

First off. I swear next time i hear someone say "My mage beat vampire warriors" i'm going to change their avatar to a chicken.

Yes, mages could beat warriors.
that means nothing.
Human warrior vs vampire warrior is the comparison you should be making.

Second, not having magery isn't a penalty to 90% of warriors. I can count on two hands the number of warriors with a spot of magery. Lots of mages who happened to have a sword, but not many true half warriors.

I like oldman's comment "If someone had chosen to make a human warrior, fool them".

Which sums up why the nerf went into place. As it stands, there is around equal reason to go vampire and equal to go human. Which is how races should have been. It should never have been "warriors are all vampires, crafters are all ice/wood elves, etc".


But yeah, this has been discused, to death, in tons of other threads, so we'll leave it at that.

And we can't give human race stones, that was brought up originally and BroadBand said no.

I'm serious on the chicken though. Stop comparing apples to dragons.
they share nothing in common.

IMO, you have to take the balance of everything into account, and choose the lesser of evils. True, a pure human warrior vrs a vamp warrior, a vamp would most likely win most of the time....but there's more to the shard then just pure human warriors and vamp warriors. Balance needs to be maintained between human warriors, tank warriors, mages, vamp warriors, and heck, I've even seen some darn good fighting crafters that we can balance out.

The shard has more then dragons and oranges or apples and trolls (well, we got a lot of trolls) and they all have to play well with each other.

not being able to recall might suck, but it means jack in a 1 vs 1 fight. and yeah i played with duck a few times lol.

_________________
LOV FOR LIFE

All this talk of "balance towards humans" has me thinking that humans are the best class in general, being able to mix and match their skills and whatnot, because even 1 or 2 essential skills they have can be invaluable (magery). But while they have these advantages, race have advantages themselves because they can specialize and become more adept.

So basically a Vampire warrior would probably beat a Human pure warrior, but a human tank, or any other variation would stand a much better chance. But then the Vampire could just hop on his necro and rape the tank of course. We cant assume that there will even be many human warriors, because they could just go tank instead, or just go race if they want a pure warrior because that makes more sense(with archery ofc). In this system anything can be countered in the long run with races enabled, but still if your good enough anyone can kill anyone.

But apparently thats not what Bob wants, so the best solution then is to just give everyone the same skill% and give everybody, or nobody Race abilities.