While I do agree with you a bit on orcs I don't agree on elemental. The elemental is a Druid problem not a race problem.
Orcs are losing hit rate and dodge rate while the other power races will gain from it. He said he has ran tests to confirm there is a difference. Hopefully that difference is big enough to make up for orc not really losing anything and gaining even more hp regain. I hope that hp regain is accounted for as well and would love to see the numbers for it I feel like it could certainly make a diff if 1v1. Fights with 22end prob last quite a few rounds and while gaining 4x the hp on top of already having top hp regain from 22 end. Anyways numbers would be nice on that.
Other than orc (maybe if the numbers don't back it up) I think everything looks a ton better. Yes halfling could use something minor racial but we are very very close. A ton more balanced than current so I'm not sure how you could say current is better. I do understand if you want to see the numbers tho I'm just taking hawk on his word here.
Race Stat Changes
Re: Race Stat Changes
I'd have to disagree with alot of that I think.
Saurians were getting a nerf because the HP formula changed. For about 20HP loss (they aren't losing alot here) they are part of the AGI buff and a small MR buff to compensate which is well fine to me. Raising AGI without modifying saurians so slightly even if it is a small change as above is alarming. They would of gotten 30HP extra, more AGI on a race that is pretty much already OP. Drakes are pretty similar but they lose even less HP. No matter what you do with the changes. Saurians get a huge buff. If you adjust END to be more at lower END, Saurians get a buff. If you change AGI, saurians get a buff. Do you see the issue with saurians and why something needs to be done at least to ensure their HP stays where it is now too with the potential END changes?
I have added the old HP formula there too. you can see right now saurians have 1020 HP with 19 END, and with 18 end its 1000 HP. 20HP for little more AGI and little more MR seems to be OK to me. Drakeblood also lose similar but because of the new HP calculations it's again not much. I also feel like 50HP per END is better as right now END is probably to large of a change per END point.
---
The only real race thats probably getting a change nerf wise to HP is Dwarves that get 22 END. But as others have said for 3 str you are getting 4 armor, 10 spell damage negation, higher MR bonuses, Infravision. (there is HP per tick too but that's another story.). I'm wondering if it's because your basing it off a slayer where probably having the extra damage rather then extra tank would be a better story for a slayer since its x4 or x4.5 multiplier, but for the rest dwarves are probably more OP because of all the racial bonuses they get plus high END.
Elemental is not really the problem I feel either, if anything we can check their allocation points but the issue lies with druids more.
I'm fine with tests but you'd have to know what stats you wanna test with and what class/race combo. Mainly I think the tests that are need are physical based rather than magical.
Obviously the only race I am still unsure is Gnomes. One INT does help but obv we cant +1 END them without breaking other races and having to modify those. +1 agi is OK (to me) so you'd instead look at -2 str -1 end +1 wis +1 int -2 char vs elves so I don't know if that was enough to me to be viable. Being glass cannons and having an extra 8 damage or so ain't a big deal at least to me for a race that will have minimum HP.
Saurians were getting a nerf because the HP formula changed. For about 20HP loss (they aren't losing alot here) they are part of the AGI buff and a small MR buff to compensate which is well fine to me. Raising AGI without modifying saurians so slightly even if it is a small change as above is alarming. They would of gotten 30HP extra, more AGI on a race that is pretty much already OP. Drakes are pretty similar but they lose even less HP. No matter what you do with the changes. Saurians get a huge buff. If you adjust END to be more at lower END, Saurians get a buff. If you change AGI, saurians get a buff. Do you see the issue with saurians and why something needs to be done at least to ensure their HP stays where it is now too with the potential END changes?
I have added the old HP formula there too. you can see right now saurians have 1020 HP with 19 END, and with 18 end its 1000 HP. 20HP for little more AGI and little more MR seems to be OK to me. Drakeblood also lose similar but because of the new HP calculations it's again not much. I also feel like 50HP per END is better as right now END is probably to large of a change per END point.
---
The only real race thats probably getting a change nerf wise to HP is Dwarves that get 22 END. But as others have said for 3 str you are getting 4 armor, 10 spell damage negation, higher MR bonuses, Infravision. (there is HP per tick too but that's another story.). I'm wondering if it's because your basing it off a slayer where probably having the extra damage rather then extra tank would be a better story for a slayer since its x4 or x4.5 multiplier, but for the rest dwarves are probably more OP because of all the racial bonuses they get plus high END.
Elemental is not really the problem I feel either, if anything we can check their allocation points but the issue lies with druids more.
I'm fine with tests but you'd have to know what stats you wanna test with and what class/race combo. Mainly I think the tests that are need are physical based rather than magical.
Obviously the only race I am still unsure is Gnomes. One INT does help but obv we cant +1 END them without breaking other races and having to modify those. +1 agi is OK (to me) so you'd instead look at -2 str -1 end +1 wis +1 int -2 char vs elves so I don't know if that was enough to me to be viable. Being glass cannons and having an extra 8 damage or so ain't a big deal at least to me for a race that will have minimum HP.
Re: Race Stat Changes
I've got a couple of big concerns.
There seems to be so many changes lined up and I haven't heard much about testing so far.
There's also A LOT of stat changes proposed, which will affect all races either directly or indirectly.
If someone has spent X weeks or months levelling their characters and suddenly with these changes they feel they're all bad, then we might lose a chunk of players from these changes.
Yes it might only be a 20hp difference for a saurian, but it's still a big thing for a player to see -1 end go down, and to see saurians suddenly be equal to halflings.
All this HP is being reduced and you've still got Orc slayers with 25 str landing 650+ backstabs frequently.
I just really hope that testing proves these changes are logical and needed, because it doesnt feel that way so far.
Orcs and halflings both look to be doing very well out of these changes.
Dark elves, elves, half elves, humans, saurians, drakebloods and dwarves all look to be doing badly out of them (either directly or indirectly)
Based on these changes I'd strongly consider rerolling most of my characters to be different races.
I currently have a half elf priest, halfling looks like it might be a much better choice
Dwarf slayer? Orc looks far superior, pulling ahead of saurian
Gnome chanter/dm? halfling looks like it could be very good
Considering between halfling/elf for bard/ranger? looks like halfling is now much better
I'm just really uncomfortable with this being debated and decided upon without more testing of numbers.
Do we even know *for sure* where the imbalances currently are? If we don't then how can we tweak this effectively?!
There seems to be so many changes lined up and I haven't heard much about testing so far.
There's also A LOT of stat changes proposed, which will affect all races either directly or indirectly.
If someone has spent X weeks or months levelling their characters and suddenly with these changes they feel they're all bad, then we might lose a chunk of players from these changes.
Yes it might only be a 20hp difference for a saurian, but it's still a big thing for a player to see -1 end go down, and to see saurians suddenly be equal to halflings.
All this HP is being reduced and you've still got Orc slayers with 25 str landing 650+ backstabs frequently.
I just really hope that testing proves these changes are logical and needed, because it doesnt feel that way so far.
Orcs and halflings both look to be doing very well out of these changes.
Dark elves, elves, half elves, humans, saurians, drakebloods and dwarves all look to be doing badly out of them (either directly or indirectly)
Based on these changes I'd strongly consider rerolling most of my characters to be different races.
I currently have a half elf priest, halfling looks like it might be a much better choice
Dwarf slayer? Orc looks far superior, pulling ahead of saurian
Gnome chanter/dm? halfling looks like it could be very good
Considering between halfling/elf for bard/ranger? looks like halfling is now much better
I'm just really uncomfortable with this being debated and decided upon without more testing of numbers.
Do we even know *for sure* where the imbalances currently are? If we don't then how can we tweak this effectively?!
Re: Race Stat Changes
[youtube][/youtube]
To me this isn't really 'alot of changes' though. It's alot less then the original proposed and giving everyone END because we changed the formula instead. I am not sure why you think elves would be bad priests. I see that lings and elves both have their benefits and weaknesses.
Yeah, with -4 str. I mean you were just stating that dwarves are probably under HOs (which I disagree with) and thats -3 str right? I mean giving a examples its a 19/23/18/12/20/10 or 18/24/18/12/20/10 slayer for example (just an random throw for similar stats) vs a 23/22/18/10/14/10 or 22/23/18/10/14/10 slayer. Both seem decent, but I doubt people are gonna swap to ling on slayers for 1 AGI. I would rather do DE if that was the case for a slayer with decent str but good MR too.
Ling or elf for ranger, yeah probably Ling though you have more an extra allocation with Elf, elves have better MR with the extra. But yeah I'd assume you're often running into physical classes more atm so the AGI would be more worth.
Not sure why that 1 AGI is suddenly making the difference to you and your ignoring the damage loss you'd get from lower int too. Yeah AGI is being improved a little but I still think high END is gonna be more common in group fights but higher AGI will prob be good for 1vs1s, which isn't too bad.
The lings and HE for priests, not sure what would be better but I'm going to throw what I think an example would be. You could do a 10/23/19/20/20/10 ling or a 10/21/20/20/20/14 HE, which is on average about 90 HP more. HEs needing 2 points for a +1 and they get fizzle reduction that I still think needs to be higher. Reason why I put into Chr is for the extra HP, which with enough points doesn't start at 0, the char min is higher as it goes up.
Before with the current formulas you're looking at a difference of about 70HP. (with the 17end and also HEs having lower HP too.)
I think the problems are generally:
-Lings aren't being used as often. There's more better choices. Even with the AGI buff it would more only apply to AGI that has more difference vs lets say a 22 vs 23 agi race. We could 'try' without the END point but I don't think anyones gonna use them IMO.
-Gnomes while being created still, I don't think are the great for just being the highest INT by 1 currently. I do think they are OK, but their stats aren't enough to compete in actual PVP (above average AGI, lowest END), maybe PVE is OK. At least with +1 more INT, you make them heavier hitters (+8-9 damage more) so that its a trade off. They are glass cannons and I don't think it breaks balance so much for them.
-DEs are shadowed by Goblins. Their stats are actually fine in terms of differences. Lowering goblin MR to 12.5% puts their MR a little lower then DEs,but still high for a magic counter. Obvously your trading things like END etc too which is why I think it's fair. I saw most races have 106 points in that range, and Des have 105. Meaning you lose out on a point which I didn't understand. Could of been a typo in the past but with 106 I think their actual stats are fine with a couple small racial bonuses. The two char isn't really a big bonus or big deal. Just the potential option of being ranger/bard but your eff with pets will be around 95% I believe. Not terrible, but it puts them in line with having decent str/agi with ok chr I suppose.
-Dwarves. I mean, we had HP of around 1500+ with some people. That's overly high. When I attempted to balance them in the past I gave way too much. They either need to lose some of their bonuses, like spell damage etc, or lose an END. I don't honestly think the race is bad. They aren't ideal for slayers unless you wanted high MR with high END, and I feel that 3 str is a good hit for 6 armor, 10 magic damage, higher MR %, and infra (2HP bonus but obv HO has that win, but that would be then more a bonus vs others. Still isn't a big one to gloat though.)
-Saurians and Drakebloods are a problem because while they are fine as it is, I honestly think that the AGI update PLUS the END changes will make them too powerful. They'd not only gain AGI, but also 30HP-40HP. For -20HP we're pretty much giving them the AGI update, and saurians are being readjust MR wise to not be so tough, and we're putting it back on half orcs being the weaker at MR, though maybe their max Wis should be 12 too on HO.
I really disagree that saurians and drakebloods are doing badly from this.
I mean most are being buffed not reduced bar the obvious one being dwarves which actually losing the END point does take a hit to their HP a proper amount (since we dont change 22end HP.). But as I said before saurians and drakebloods already are pretty OP, giving them AGI and END is dumb and you can't simply change formulas and leave them the same.
+++
I do agree with testing, but I'm aiming to have a base to test with too first.
Eld wrote:I've got a couple of big concerns.
There seems to be so many changes lined up and I haven't heard much about testing so far.
There's also A LOT of stat changes proposed, which will affect all races either directly or indirectly.
If someone has spent X weeks or months levelling their characters and suddenly with these changes they feel they're all bad, then we might lose a chunk of players from these changes.
Yes it might only be a 20hp difference for a saurian, but it's still a big thing for a player to see -1 end go down, and to see saurians suddenly be equal to halflings.
All this HP is being reduced and you've still got Orc slayers with 25 str landing 650+ backstabs frequently.
I just really hope that testing proves these changes are logical and needed, because it doesnt feel that way so far.
Orcs and halflings both look to be doing very well out of these changes.
Dark elves, elves, half elves, humans, saurians, drakebloods and dwarves all look to be doing badly out of them (either directly or indirectly)
Based on these changes I'd strongly consider rerolling most of my characters to be different races.
I currently have a half elf priest, halfling looks like it might be a much better choice
Dwarf slayer? Orc looks far superior, pulling ahead of saurian
Gnome chanter/dm? halfling looks like it could be very good
Considering between halfling/elf for bard/ranger? looks like halfling is now much better
I'm just really uncomfortable with this being debated and decided upon without more testing of numbers.
Do we even know *for sure* where the imbalances currently are? If we don't then how can we tweak this effectively?!
To me this isn't really 'alot of changes' though. It's alot less then the original proposed and giving everyone END because we changed the formula instead. I am not sure why you think elves would be bad priests. I see that lings and elves both have their benefits and weaknesses.
Saurians suddenly be equal to halflings.
Yeah, with -4 str. I mean you were just stating that dwarves are probably under HOs (which I disagree with) and thats -3 str right? I mean giving a examples its a 19/23/18/12/20/10 or 18/24/18/12/20/10 slayer for example (just an random throw for similar stats) vs a 23/22/18/10/14/10 or 22/23/18/10/14/10 slayer. Both seem decent, but I doubt people are gonna swap to ling on slayers for 1 AGI. I would rather do DE if that was the case for a slayer with decent str but good MR too.
Ling or elf for ranger, yeah probably Ling though you have more an extra allocation with Elf, elves have better MR with the extra. But yeah I'd assume you're often running into physical classes more atm so the AGI would be more worth.
Not sure why that 1 AGI is suddenly making the difference to you and your ignoring the damage loss you'd get from lower int too. Yeah AGI is being improved a little but I still think high END is gonna be more common in group fights but higher AGI will prob be good for 1vs1s, which isn't too bad.
The lings and HE for priests, not sure what would be better but I'm going to throw what I think an example would be. You could do a 10/23/19/20/20/10 ling or a 10/21/20/20/20/14 HE, which is on average about 90 HP more. HEs needing 2 points for a +1 and they get fizzle reduction that I still think needs to be higher. Reason why I put into Chr is for the extra HP, which with enough points doesn't start at 0, the char min is higher as it goes up.
Before with the current formulas you're looking at a difference of about 70HP. (with the 17end and also HEs having lower HP too.)
I think the problems are generally:
-Lings aren't being used as often. There's more better choices. Even with the AGI buff it would more only apply to AGI that has more difference vs lets say a 22 vs 23 agi race. We could 'try' without the END point but I don't think anyones gonna use them IMO.
-Gnomes while being created still, I don't think are the great for just being the highest INT by 1 currently. I do think they are OK, but their stats aren't enough to compete in actual PVP (above average AGI, lowest END), maybe PVE is OK. At least with +1 more INT, you make them heavier hitters (+8-9 damage more) so that its a trade off. They are glass cannons and I don't think it breaks balance so much for them.
-DEs are shadowed by Goblins. Their stats are actually fine in terms of differences. Lowering goblin MR to 12.5% puts their MR a little lower then DEs,but still high for a magic counter. Obvously your trading things like END etc too which is why I think it's fair. I saw most races have 106 points in that range, and Des have 105. Meaning you lose out on a point which I didn't understand. Could of been a typo in the past but with 106 I think their actual stats are fine with a couple small racial bonuses. The two char isn't really a big bonus or big deal. Just the potential option of being ranger/bard but your eff with pets will be around 95% I believe. Not terrible, but it puts them in line with having decent str/agi with ok chr I suppose.
-Dwarves. I mean, we had HP of around 1500+ with some people. That's overly high. When I attempted to balance them in the past I gave way too much. They either need to lose some of their bonuses, like spell damage etc, or lose an END. I don't honestly think the race is bad. They aren't ideal for slayers unless you wanted high MR with high END, and I feel that 3 str is a good hit for 6 armor, 10 magic damage, higher MR %, and infra (2HP bonus but obv HO has that win, but that would be then more a bonus vs others. Still isn't a big one to gloat though.)
-Saurians and Drakebloods are a problem because while they are fine as it is, I honestly think that the AGI update PLUS the END changes will make them too powerful. They'd not only gain AGI, but also 30HP-40HP. For -20HP we're pretty much giving them the AGI update, and saurians are being readjust MR wise to not be so tough, and we're putting it back on half orcs being the weaker at MR, though maybe their max Wis should be 12 too on HO.
I really disagree that saurians and drakebloods are doing badly from this.
Yes it might only be a 20hp difference for a saurian, but it's still a big thing for a player to see -1 end go down, and to see saurians suddenly be equal to halflings.
All this HP is being reduced and you've still got Orc slayers with 25 str landing 650+ backstabs frequently.
I mean most are being buffed not reduced bar the obvious one being dwarves which actually losing the END point does take a hit to their HP a proper amount (since we dont change 22end HP.). But as I said before saurians and drakebloods already are pretty OP, giving them AGI and END is dumb and you can't simply change formulas and leave them the same.
+++
I do agree with testing, but I'm aiming to have a base to test with too first.
Re: Race Stat Changes
The old proposal with some changed things is listed too as 13B, long with a calculator as well for 13B. You can see when you give one race END like gnomes, you got to give it to elves, and then others etc. So check 13B out for that.
It's the reason why we wanted to change the HP formula. However, to prevent saurians from pushing even farther, we had to reduce their END which they end up losing -20 HP, which is still fair IMO for AGI boost and MR. I mean, I can see doing this option too but its a lot of changes. You can't just swap the HP formula because no matter how it is, races that you dont WANT to get a boost will get it.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0
It's the reason why we wanted to change the HP formula. However, to prevent saurians from pushing even farther, we had to reduce their END which they end up losing -20 HP, which is still fair IMO for AGI boost and MR. I mean, I can see doing this option too but its a lot of changes. You can't just swap the HP formula because no matter how it is, races that you dont WANT to get a boost will get it.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0
Re: Race Stat Changes
I agree with Eld regarding concerns about potentially exasperating the player base and losing players (esp if compensatory race respecs are not given) .... This is why I asserted my opinion quite strongly on the issue earlier on. I'm not sure where NH landed regarding that but I do think that Eld has a valid point regarding "perception" often trumping "reality"... Which is why I also am unsure that his suggestion for more testing would necessarily help. Most players rely on perception rather than reality. I doubt any amount of testing or math is going to convince a person that -20hp , +1int, 2.25% per Agi or whatever is actually a big deal or not a big deal if they themselves don't feel that is the case from their own gameplay experience.
This is why I think that with any changes made in an issue like race rebalancing (which represents lots of time investment for ppl) you do need to have the option open for some form of compensatory race changes (which shows developer goodwill and keeps ppl happy now and forgiving later if future adjustments are required). And if you are confident in the latest proposal, then there shouldn't be much negative issues with offering it. After all, if you have truly reached a good balance point that offers people multiple good choices for each class, then you shouldn't need to fear about cookie cutters. If you do still fear everyone becoming homogenous by offering compensatory racial respecs, then I would probably suggest you haven't really reached a well balanced solution.
Anyway I'm probably as tired of re-explaining this as ppl are tired of re-reading/ignoring it. Do what you will, and players will do what they will. Peace and good luck.
This is why I think that with any changes made in an issue like race rebalancing (which represents lots of time investment for ppl) you do need to have the option open for some form of compensatory race changes (which shows developer goodwill and keeps ppl happy now and forgiving later if future adjustments are required). And if you are confident in the latest proposal, then there shouldn't be much negative issues with offering it. After all, if you have truly reached a good balance point that offers people multiple good choices for each class, then you shouldn't need to fear about cookie cutters. If you do still fear everyone becoming homogenous by offering compensatory racial respecs, then I would probably suggest you haven't really reached a well balanced solution.
Anyway I'm probably as tired of re-explaining this as ppl are tired of re-reading/ignoring it. Do what you will, and players will do what they will. Peace and good luck.
Re: Race Stat Changes
I'm really failing to see the problem with these changes.
Saurian and drake are pretty much top melee for everything besides maybe slayer and they are getting an agi boost for losing 20-30hp.. that's not a nerf imo.
Half-orc are going to be best slayers because of how slayer skills work that's just how it is dwarf race doesn't favor slayer. However a dwarf cav is insanely good and going to get even better. They are only losing 50 hp and heads up chr hp is going to matter more since end matters less so they really will be in a good spot.
Halfling simply gains an end point which still only means they are an elf with +1 end while elf have everything else going for them so to say halfling is now the best seems short sighted.
Honestly these are super small changes and if nitehawk had a way to just change formulas and hide the stat changes I bet hardly anyone would notice.
That said I'm super against a race change but I can see some people being upset so I can maybe see 1-2 per account created before say 1 month ago when talks started.
I really think we are coving everything that needs to be covered everyday longer this takes people are idle and not leveling crap. While some races might take a very slight hit more races are getting a nice buff that means quite a few people are going to be leveling new characters which is why it would be very nice to get this out.
Saurian and drake are pretty much top melee for everything besides maybe slayer and they are getting an agi boost for losing 20-30hp.. that's not a nerf imo.
Half-orc are going to be best slayers because of how slayer skills work that's just how it is dwarf race doesn't favor slayer. However a dwarf cav is insanely good and going to get even better. They are only losing 50 hp and heads up chr hp is going to matter more since end matters less so they really will be in a good spot.
Halfling simply gains an end point which still only means they are an elf with +1 end while elf have everything else going for them so to say halfling is now the best seems short sighted.
Honestly these are super small changes and if nitehawk had a way to just change formulas and hide the stat changes I bet hardly anyone would notice.
That said I'm super against a race change but I can see some people being upset so I can maybe see 1-2 per account created before say 1 month ago when talks started.
I really think we are coving everything that needs to be covered everyday longer this takes people are idle and not leveling crap. While some races might take a very slight hit more races are getting a nice buff that means quite a few people are going to be leveling new characters which is why it would be very nice to get this out.
Re: Race Stat Changes
Any good game has changes, patches, rebalances, etc. I think it's a bit excessive to fear losing a large chunk of the playerbase over balance tweaks. If anything people should be happy NH cares enough to put forth the effort.
I do think everyone should get respecs, and I do also think the idea of a couple race changes per account is a good idea. Snapshot accounts now, make 2 race respec items and plop them into players vaults, account bound and set to expire within 2 weeks or whatever. Or come up with whatever system you think works best.
I don't really think this is needed from a balance perspective but it does help calm people about changes imo, as Ant already stated.
I do think everyone should get respecs, and I do also think the idea of a couple race changes per account is a good idea. Snapshot accounts now, make 2 race respec items and plop them into players vaults, account bound and set to expire within 2 weeks or whatever. Or come up with whatever system you think works best.
I don't really think this is needed from a balance perspective but it does help calm people about changes imo, as Ant already stated.
<Silhouette>
Re: Race Stat Changes
Horc str still way op, and horc slay hit for 700s not 650s. Compared to DE slayer, no contest
I realize 2 chr for dark elf is a chance to say make dark elf knight. But that won't help the HP for the average player. Chr is a dump stat of last resort. I now have a kewl earth chanter, messed up and gave him chr, that was a mistake.
It creates to broad of a spectrum for dammage values. From 18 to 24
Where as magic values are a lot tighter. 22 int alt needed. Btw there is a gap in int vales for int
I realize 2 chr for dark elf is a chance to say make dark elf knight. But that won't help the HP for the average player. Chr is a dump stat of last resort. I now have a kewl earth chanter, messed up and gave him chr, that was a mistake.
It creates to broad of a spectrum for dammage values. From 18 to 24
Where as magic values are a lot tighter. 22 int alt needed. Btw there is a gap in int vales for int
Re: Race Stat Changes
Styx wrote:Horc str still way op, and horc slay hit for 700s not 650s. Compared to DE slayer, no contest
I realize 2 chr for dark elf is a chance to say make dark elf knight. But that won't help the HP for the average player. Chr is a dump stat of last resort. I now have a kewl earth chanter, messed up and gave him chr, that was a mistake.
It creates to broad of a spectrum for dammage values. From 18 to 24
Where as magic values are a lot tighter. 22 int alt needed. Btw there is a gap in int vales for int
Meant to be a gap, just like STR has a gap too.
Anyways for Lings, with the HP balance, it's also possible they don't need the extra END. I'm not sure on that though. They'd get 50HP more then current.
I'll propose something small on top of that that might make everyone be better, and that's a base HP change on top.
proposal 14>
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0
and the calc>
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =711985442
I reduced the END on lings by 1 cause I can potentially understand the issue with them overruling, so we're back to similar stats. However I've raised the HP base from 60 to 80. This means:
-Lings get 70HP bonus instead of 100HP (still alright)
-Saurians don't lose any HP.
-Drakes lose -10.
-Dwarfs still lose the most at -40.
Lings will get a 0.2 second exhaust boost. Obviously they had one int he past but it was higher than this (0.5). With 0.2 it gives them a advantage. Maybe too high, could be 0.15 or 0.1 if its too much. Makes them a little different too.
Not saying im ignoring #13, just throwing another suggestion for lings if people are feeling lings might overrule though I'm not sure I agree with it yet.
P.S. When you put in the stat points lings and elves are literally the same is why when it comes to paladins and such, you might as well go for lings in that case. I.E. 18 23 19 16 16 10 vs 18 22 19 17 16 10 ... Obviously elves would be better at it if you don't need STR so priests, and spell casters but its very little difference, so attempting to make the races different in other ways. With 13 though I disagree that lings will override HEs for some things. HEs can get 18/21/20/20/16/10 with no issues.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 193 guests