[crossfire] races

[Mark Wedel]

On 05/25/10 11:35 PM, Nicolas Weeger wrote:
> Hello.
>
>>    Yes - I was thinking something similar could be done (either as advanced
>> option or some goal like you describe).
>>
>>    More player input would probably be desirable.  I'm not sure how
>> much/appreciated it would be that after you complete some goal, a new
>> race/class is open to you, but only because it is a sucky/hard to play
>> race or class.  I could see some players going 'huh?  WTF?'  In many
>> cases, such 'rewards' are supposed to be just that - something that makes
>> the game better/more enjoyable/new ability.
>>
>>    Now some players may find the option of playing a hard to play race
>> something they want to do, but I have a feeling that would be the
>> minority.
>
> What about putting a big warning when such a hard combination is chosen,
> something like 'This combo is pretty hard to play, and should be used only by
> courageous adventurers - you have been warned!'?

  My problem right now isn't as much combos that are hard to play, but races in 
which any choice of class is hard to play (aka unplayable races).

  If a troll tries to play a mage, he is in bad shape.  While putting warnings 
up might be nice, I'm not sure of a good mechanic to do that.  Perhaps in those 
cases, just having the class description make it clear, something like 'Power is 
a key attribute for wizards, and any starting wizard should have at least a 20 
power' or the like.  So when the player chooses a troll and sees a -4 pow 
penalty (or whatever it is), maybe realizes that isn't a good choice.

  Another possibility I just thought of is going back to old AD&D, which is 
minimum stat requirements.  So maybe a wizard has a 15 pow and 15 int 
requirement.  If you don't meet those, you just can't play that class until the 
stats are increased.

  In any case, as stated above, my issue right now for some of the races is that 
they are not very playable for any class.

>
>>    I still also stand by my point that the more options/combinations, the
>> harder it is for things to balance.  Imagine a game that only has 4
>> classes, 1 race, and only 30 monsters.  While not a very complicated game
>> (and thus not a lot of gameplay), it is something fairly easy to balance.
>>
>>    But when you have 15 different races, 20 different classes, you start to
>> get into a huge number of combinations, and that is just in terms of
>> playable combinations.  I'd rather just work on a smaller set, and once
>> that gets balanced (under some determination of balance), then start
>> adding in more races/classes and see how it works out.  Even as is now,
>> the number of tests needed is probably large.
>
>
> Indeed.
> So one solution is to balance for some combinations, and put a big warning
> 'this combo hasn't been really balanced, please help us fix it if you are
> courageous enough to play it'.

  But some danger can be a race/class combination that is too powerful.  Balance 
is an overall achievement - that all classes & races are basically on-par with 
each other.

  So while having lots of races is likely to lead to some cases of the race not 
being very powerful, and thus hard to play, you may get other cases where the 
race is too powerful, and too easy to play.

  But balance can be hard to achieve in many areas.  One might say 'this spell 
is just to powerful - that is why that class is too good', but tuning down that 
spell affects every class that uses it, as well as items, so may have more 
consequences than intended.  This is one reason why balance is so hard.