Log in

View Full Version : Race affect mitigation and avoid ?


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

Nemi
11-24-2005, 03:25 PM
<DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>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.</FONT></DIV>

MrDiz
11-24-2005, 09:13 PM
<P>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.</P> <P> </P> <P>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 <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>

Gaige
11-25-2005, 02:41 AM
<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MrDizzi wrote:<BR> <P>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.</P> <P>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 <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>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.</P> <P>Kind of like the lvl 20 group cure traits.<BR></P>

Etherium
11-25-2005, 04:42 AM
<P>*chuckles at Gaige's statement.*  </P> <P> </P> <P>No disadvantages from racial choice?  What about disadvantages from class choice?</P> <P> </P> <P>I think the racial differences are purely due to stats to get back on track.</P>

Exill
11-25-2005, 04:48 AM
<span><blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote: <p>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.</p> <hr></blockquote></span><div></div>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
<blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MrDizzi wrote:<BR> <P>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.</P> <P>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 <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>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.</P> <P>Kind of like the lvl 20 group cure traits.<BR></P> <hr></blockquote> 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 <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Nemi
11-25-2005, 05:21 AM
<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>MrDizzi wrote:<BR><BR>Thing is in eq1 ogres had lots and lots of disavantages to offset it. I like that. Choices = real choices rather than cosmetic fluff <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>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.<BR></FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

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. <div></div>

Chog
11-25-2005, 09:14 AM
<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TunaBoo wrote:<BR>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.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>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).</P> <P>Overall the penalty for being an Ogre was no penalty at all.</P>

DistortionII
11-25-2005, 09:33 AM
Just out of curiosity, what was their reasoning behind giving Ogres an experience penalty? <div></div>

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. <div></div>

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 <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="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
<blockquote><hr>DistortionII wrote:Just out of curiosity, what was their reasoning behind giving Ogres an experience penalty? <div></div><hr></blockquote>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
<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gaige wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>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.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>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.</P> <P>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.</P> <P>Vork, 54 guardian</P>