Race affect mitigation and avoid ?

annyliu1 · 11-24-2005, 09:47 AM

Yesterday I compare my mitigation with a guild friend

I got 1 T5 fabled and 1 T6 fabled others are cobalt gear

Friend got 2 T6 fabled and others all T5 fabled

Before the compare, I thought I should got more mitigation casue I use cobalt and he use T5 fabled

But actully his mitigation is higher then me ?! It is almost same but he still got like 50 more mitigation.

Then we checked avoid, I got around 20 more agi then him, but he still got 5% more avoid,

We both fully self buffed without 30sec buff. Our buff are all adp3 and defense buff M2, exactly same. (no potion was used)

The only different is he is barbarian and Im half elf

I know barbarian got add defense from his race trail

But 5% more is a bit too much I think? and I even got more agi (we use same shield too)

And beside avoid, anything else can add mitigation beside armors?

Did barbarian also got some talent to add mitigation too?

And is that so much difference between race ?

Nemi · 11-24-2005, 03:25 PM

Why don't you compare naked stats unbuffed and then you could accurately compare the races, unless of course you're both different levels or different points through the same level then skill difference will play a part.

MrDiz · 11-24-2005, 09:13 PM

If it does its not by much, which is a shame in my opinion. I remember in eq1 I was at a disadvantage playing a halfling cleric compared to high elves with my power pool being lower, but thats kinda what made it more fun. My halfling warrior was no where near as strong and had way less hp than the ogre warriors, but he had an avoidance advantage. It was fun partly because the choice of race actually affected your game.

Of course is then the world was full of half elf clerics, ogre warriors and erudin wizards. But then isnt that more realistic? People who wanted to tank chose a big race, those wanting to heal chose a wise race, and only the idiots like me chose the path of most resistence SMILEY

Gaige · 11-25-2005, 02:41 AM

MrDizzi wrote:

If it does its not by much, which is a shame in my opinion. I remember in eq1 I was at a disadvantage playing a halfling cleric compared to high elves with my power pool being lower, but thats kinda what made it more fun. My halfling warrior was no where near as strong and had way less hp than the ogre warriors, but he had an avoidance advantage. It was fun partly because the choice of race actually affected your game.

Of course is then the world was full of half elf clerics, ogre warriors and erudin wizards. But then isnt that more realistic? People who wanted to tank chose a big race, those wanting to heal chose a wise race, and only the idiots like me chose the path of most resistence

I don't know if realistic is the word I would use, but I don't like systems were a player's choice leads to a major disadvantage. It just seems kind of ridiculous.

Kind of like the lvl 20 group cure traits.

Etherium · 11-25-2005, 04:42 AM

*chuckles at Gaige's statement.*

No disadvantages from racial choice? What about disadvantages from class choice?

I think the racial differences are purely due to stats to get back on track.

Exill · 11-25-2005, 04:48 AM

Gaige wrote:
I don't know if realistic is the word I would use, but I don't like systems were a player's choice leads to a major disadvantage. It just seems kind of ridiculous.

If Gaige had his way all races would be exactly the same and all classes within their archtype would be exactly the same. The only thing different would be your appearance (race) and your in game title (class).Then we might as well simplify everything and just have 4 classes and 1 race. (yea right)People LIKE diveristy. If there is no advantage / disadvantage to choosing a race/class, then there is no diversity and everywhere you turn around it is just another clone.

MrDiz · 11-25-2005, 05:01 AM

Gaige wrote:

MrDizzi wrote:

If it does its not by much, which is a shame in my opinion. I remember in eq1 I was at a disadvantage playing a halfling cleric compared to high elves with my power pool being lower, but thats kinda what made it more fun. My halfling warrior was no where near as strong and had way less hp than the ogre warriors, but he had an avoidance advantage. It was fun partly because the choice of race actually affected your game.

Of course is then the world was full of half elf clerics, ogre warriors and erudin wizards. But then isnt that more realistic? People who wanted to tank chose a big race, those wanting to heal chose a wise race, and only the idiots like me chose the path of most resistence

I don't know if realistic is the word I would use, but I don't like systems were a player's choice leads to a major disadvantage. It just seems kind of ridiculous.

Kind of like the lvl 20 group cure traits.

Actually for me it seems ridiculous that the choice i made to be a halfing doesnt give me a disadvantage. I mean seriosuly ..... ogre warrior .... halfling warrior .... Thing is in eq1 ogres had lots and lots of disavantages to offset it. I like that. Choices = real choices rather than cosmetic fluff SMILEY

Nemi · 11-25-2005, 05:21 AM

MrDizzi wrote:

Thing is in eq1 ogres had lots and lots of disavantages to offset it. I like that. Choices = real choices rather than cosmetic fluff

Really? Care to let me in on it? Huge Str and Sta starting stat, immunity to stun from front..where was the downside? Travel? Faction...don't make me laugh.

TunaBoo · 11-25-2005, 07:14 AM

I didn't play eq1, but I drool at the stun immunity part. Didn't ogres have more trouble finding gear for their size, or is this not true? In most muds I played LARGE gear was a pain to get over medium... and from what I saw I thought eq1 had gear sizes.

Chog · 11-25-2005, 09:14 AM

TunaBoo wrote:
I didn't play eq1, but I drool at the stun immunity part. Didn't ogres have more trouble finding gear for their size, or is this not true? In most muds I played LARGE gear was a pain to get over medium... and from what I saw I thought eq1 had gear sizes.

EQ1 did have gear sizes (Large / Medium / Small). Magic armor did not have a size attached to it (that I can remember), so after you started to acquire magical armor the size on armor was meaningless. Ogres did have trouble fitting into some areas, and could not get into certain areas in Sol-B (Then the shrink spell on shamans came out and changed that). I do beleive Ogres received an Exp penalty for being an Ogre (which was later removed if I remember correctly).

Overall the penalty for being an Ogre was no penalty at all.

DistortionII · 11-25-2005, 09:33 AM

Just out of curiosity, what was their reasoning behind giving Ogres an experience penalty?

TunaBoo · 11-25-2005, 11:16 AM

From what I saw of eq1.. if your race has a benefit like regen or stun immune.. you got XP penalty. of if you had a super duper class that could do a lot (maybe beastmaster? no idea) you got an xp penalty. Was a weird system.

MrDiz · 11-25-2005, 02:15 PM

LOL you guys obviously dont rememeber Ogres getting stuck in the doorways of Cazic thule maze and causing entire groups to wipe as they tried to train to the zone SMILEY

Look, I chose a halfling and it was cool. But it was not quite as good a warrior as an ogre. That was the price I paid for choosing a halfling. Each race / class had advantages and disadvantages. Thats ones of the hallmarks of rpgs.

MrDiz · 11-25-2005, 02:18 PM

DistortionII wrote:Just out of curiosity, what was their reasoning behind giving Ogres an experience penalty?

You took longer to level. Humans had an exp bonus I remember. The idea is you choose a human with no 'extras' but you level faster. Do you want the cool extras, or do you want to play a little less or get to lvl 50 faster?

Hend · 11-25-2005, 02:30 PM

Gaige wrote:

I don't know if realistic is the word I would use, but I don't like systems were a player's choice leads to a major disadvantage. It just seems kind of ridiculous.

Are you serious? What's the point in making choices if they bare little or no consequence? As long as the game provides enough information to make an informed choice, the player should of course face the consequences of his mistake.

This is why I still believe that players claiming to have chosen a monk a year ago because they wanted to raid-tank as well as any fighter without having to pay in terms of dps, utility and/or soloability should have lived with their mistake or reroll rather than whine and demand that guardians got their tankability nerfed.

Vork, 54 guardian

11-24-2005, 09:13 PM	#3
MrDiz General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 689	If it does its not by much, which is a shame in my opinion. I remember in eq1 I was at a disadvantage playing a halfling cleric compared to high elves with my power pool being lower, but thats kinda what made it more fun. My halfling warrior was no where near as strong and had way less hp than the ogre warriors, but he had an avoidance advantage. It was fun partly because the choice of race actually affected your game. Of course is then the world was full of half elf clerics, ogre warriors and erudin wizards. But then isnt that more realistic? People who wanted to tank chose a big race, those wanting to heal chose a wise race, and only the idiots like me chose the path of most resistence __________________ Gizzi: Halfling 70 Swashbuckler, Dizzi: Halfling 70 Templar, Vizzi - Halfling 61 Shadow Knight, Bizzi - Halfling 61 Dirge, Qizzi - Halfling 70 Illusionist, Tizzi - Halfling 60 guardian ( Peek inside Dizzi's Home )

11-25-2005, 02:41 AM	#4
Gaige Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arizona Posts: 9,500	MrDizzi wrote: If it does its not by much, which is a shame in my opinion. I remember in eq1 I was at a disadvantage playing a halfling cleric compared to high elves with my power pool being lower, but thats kinda what made it more fun. My halfling warrior was no where near as strong and had way less hp than the ogre warriors, but he had an avoidance advantage. It was fun partly because the choice of race actually affected your game. Of course is then the world was full of half elf clerics, ogre warriors and erudin wizards. But then isnt that more realistic? People who wanted to tank chose a big race, those wanting to heal chose a wise race, and only the idiots like me chose the path of most resistence I don't know if realistic is the word I would use, but I don't like systems were a player's choice leads to a major disadvantage. It just seems kind of ridiculous. Kind of like the lvl 20 group cure traits. __________________

11-25-2005, 04:48 AM	#6
Exill Loremaster Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 67	Gaige wrote: I don't know if realistic is the word I would use, but I don't like systems were a player's choice leads to a major disadvantage. It just seems kind of ridiculous. If Gaige had his way all races would be exactly the same and all classes within their archtype would be exactly the same. The only thing different would be your appearance (race) and your in game title (class).Then we might as well simplify everything and just have 4 classes and 1 race. (yea right)People LIKE diveristy. If there is no advantage / disadvantage to choosing a race/class, then there is no diversity and everywhere you turn around it is just another clone. __________________

11-25-2005, 05:01 AM	#7
MrDiz General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 689	Gaige wrote: MrDizzi wrote: If it does its not by much, which is a shame in my opinion. I remember in eq1 I was at a disadvantage playing a halfling cleric compared to high elves with my power pool being lower, but thats kinda what made it more fun. My halfling warrior was no where near as strong and had way less hp than the ogre warriors, but he had an avoidance advantage. It was fun partly because the choice of race actually affected your game. Of course is then the world was full of half elf clerics, ogre warriors and erudin wizards. But then isnt that more realistic? People who wanted to tank chose a big race, those wanting to heal chose a wise race, and only the idiots like me chose the path of most resistence I don't know if realistic is the word I would use, but I don't like systems were a player's choice leads to a major disadvantage. It just seems kind of ridiculous. Kind of like the lvl 20 group cure traits. Actually for me it seems ridiculous that the choice i made to be a halfing doesnt give me a disadvantage. I mean seriosuly ..... ogre warrior .... halfling warrior .... Thing is in eq1 ogres had lots and lots of disavantages to offset it. I like that. Choices = real choices rather than cosmetic fluff __________________ Gizzi: Halfling 70 Swashbuckler, Dizzi: Halfling 70 Templar, Vizzi - Halfling 61 Shadow Knight, Bizzi - Halfling 61 Dirge, Qizzi - Halfling 70 Illusionist, Tizzi - Halfling 60 guardian ( Peek inside Dizzi's Home )

11-25-2005, 05:21 AM	#8
Nemi Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 603	MrDizzi wrote: Thing is in eq1 ogres had lots and lots of disavantages to offset it. I like that. Choices = real choices rather than cosmetic fluff Really? Care to let me in on it? Huge Str and Sta starting stat, immunity to stun from front..where was the downside? Travel? Faction...don't make me laugh.

11-24-2005, 09:47 AM	#1
annyliu1 Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 17	Yesterday I compare my mitigation with a guild friend I got 1 T5 fabled and 1 T6 fabled others are cobalt gear Friend got 2 T6 fabled and others all T5 fabled Before the compare, I thought I should got more mitigation casue I use cobalt and he use T5 fabled But actully his mitigation is higher then me ?! It is almost same but he still got like 50 more mitigation. Then we checked avoid, I got around 20 more agi then him, but he still got 5% more avoid, We both fully self buffed without 30sec buff. Our buff are all adp3 and defense buff M2, exactly same. (no potion was used) The only different is he is barbarian and Im half elf I know barbarian got add defense from his race trail But 5% more is a bit too much I think? and I even got more agi (we use same shield too) And beside avoid, anything else can add mitigation beside armors? Did barbarian also got some talent to add mitigation too? And is that so much difference between race ?

11-24-2005, 03:25 PM	#2
Nemi Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 603	Why don't you compare naked stats unbuffed and then you could accurately compare the races, unless of course you're both different levels or different points through the same level then skill difference will play a part.

11-25-2005, 04:42 AM	#5
Etherium Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 91	chuckles at Gaige's statement. No disadvantages from racial choice? What about disadvantages from class choice? I think the racial differences are purely due to stats to get back on track.

11-25-2005, 07:14 AM	#9
TunaBoo Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,507	I didn't play eq1, but I drool at the stun immunity part. Didn't ogres have more trouble finding gear for their size, or is this not true? In most muds I played LARGE gear was a pain to get over medium... and from what I saw I thought eq1 had gear sizes. __________________ www.spiralguild.com

11-25-2005, 09:14 AM	#10
Chog General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 475	TunaBoo wrote: I didn't play eq1, but I drool at the stun immunity part. Didn't ogres have more trouble finding gear for their size, or is this not true? In most muds I played LARGE gear was a pain to get over medium... and from what I saw I thought eq1 had gear sizes. EQ1 did have gear sizes (Large / Medium / Small). Magic armor did not have a size attached to it (that I can remember), so after you started to acquire magical armor the size on armor was meaningless. Ogres did have trouble fitting into some areas, and could not get into certain areas in Sol-B (Then the shrink spell on shamans came out and changed that). I do beleive Ogres received an Exp penalty for being an Ogre (which was later removed if I remember correctly). Overall the penalty for being an Ogre was no penalty at all. __________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Your food stamps will be stopped effective March 1992 because we received notice that you passed away. May God bless you. You may reapply if there is a change in your circumstances."--Department of Social Services, Greenville, South Carolina

11-25-2005, 09:33 AM	#11
DistortionII Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 23	Just out of curiosity, what was their reasoning behind giving Ogres an experience penalty?

11-25-2005, 11:16 AM	#12
TunaBoo Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,507	From what I saw of eq1.. if your race has a benefit like regen or stun immune.. you got XP penalty. of if you had a super duper class that could do a lot (maybe beastmaster? no idea) you got an xp penalty. Was a weird system. __________________ www.spiralguild.com

11-25-2005, 02:15 PM	#13
MrDiz General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 689	LOL you guys obviously dont rememeber Ogres getting stuck in the doorways of Cazic thule maze and causing entire groups to wipe as they tried to train to the zone Look, I chose a halfling and it was cool. But it was not quite as good a warrior as an ogre. That was the price I paid for choosing a halfling. Each race / class had advantages and disadvantages. Thats ones of the hallmarks of rpgs. __________________ Gizzi: Halfling 70 Swashbuckler, Dizzi: Halfling 70 Templar, Vizzi - Halfling 61 Shadow Knight, Bizzi - Halfling 61 Dirge, Qizzi - Halfling 70 Illusionist, Tizzi - Halfling 60 guardian ( Peek inside Dizzi's Home )

11-25-2005, 02:18 PM	#14
MrDiz General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 689	DistortionII wrote:Just out of curiosity, what was their reasoning behind giving Ogres an experience penalty? You took longer to level. Humans had an exp bonus I remember. The idea is you choose a human with no 'extras' but you level faster. Do you want the cool extras, or do you want to play a little less or get to lvl 50 faster? __________________ Gizzi: Halfling 70 Swashbuckler, Dizzi: Halfling 70 Templar, Vizzi - Halfling 61 Shadow Knight, Bizzi - Halfling 61 Dirge, Qizzi - Halfling 70 Illusionist, Tizzi - Halfling 60 guardian ( Peek inside Dizzi's Home )

11-25-2005, 02:30 PM	#15
Hend General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 54	Gaige wrote: I don't know if realistic is the word I would use, but I don't like systems were a player's choice leads to a major disadvantage. It just seems kind of ridiculous. Are you serious? What's the point in making choices if they bare little or no consequence? As long as the game provides enough information to make an informed choice, the player should of course face the consequences of his mistake. This is why I still believe that players claiming to have chosen a monk a year ago because they wanted to raid-tank as well as any fighter without having to pay in terms of dps, utility and/or soloability should have lived with their mistake or reroll rather than whine and demand that guardians got their tankability nerfed. Vork, 54 guardian