What are the server logs telling us?
What races pass level 10?
What races pass level 20?
What races pass level 50?
What do most people play?
I belive Human, Half orc, Northman and Halfling is the least played.
What is your favorite race?
Moderator: Board moderators
-
Leaf
- Forum Aficionado
- Posts: 1994
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 5:55 pm
- Location: Minnesota, USA
- Contact:
Nannif wrote:What are the server logs telling us?
<...>
What do most people play?
FWIW, right now on crossfire.metalforge.net the active player directory contains: (And assumes my grep syntax was accurate)
21 Half Orc
33 Halfling
39 Serpentman
51 Gnome
52 Troll
56 Northman
59 Quetzalcoatl
80 Wraith
190 Fireborn
203 Dwarf
235 Human
244 Elf
304 Dragon
Last edited by Leaf on Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Put another, more succinct way: don't complain, contribute. It's more satisfying in the long run, and it's more constructive."
Eric Meyer
Eric Meyer
If races are that skewed in general use, I think perhaps a rebalance is in order. Half Orcs tune in at 1.3% of the population. Is it worth having races that never really get used?
The overall goal of, in the general case, having zero net balance for stat bonuses looks good on paper, but doesn't mesh with real game play. Some stats are just "more equal" than others.
I don't necesarily mean that you want to have all races be cookie-cutter equivalent in overall power - it's nice to have "prestige" (not in the D&D sense) races - races that are harder to play and thus makes for a more prestigious accomplishment. But I see that the top 5 out of 13 races make up 75% of the population. That looks to me like an adjustment or three might be in order.
The overall goal of, in the general case, having zero net balance for stat bonuses looks good on paper, but doesn't mesh with real game play. Some stats are just "more equal" than others.
I don't necesarily mean that you want to have all races be cookie-cutter equivalent in overall power - it's nice to have "prestige" (not in the D&D sense) races - races that are harder to play and thus makes for a more prestigious accomplishment. But I see that the top 5 out of 13 races make up 75% of the population. That looks to me like an adjustment or three might be in order.
I would personally say that the reason people don't use half-orcs isn't because they're underpowered, but is because they arn't interesting/fun.
All of the humanoid races (all except quetzalcoatl, dragon, and fireborn), are rather plain. Sure wraiths are a little interesting, and snakemen are nice with how they are about to use 4 rings. I believe that the interesting things about snakemen, quetzalcoatl, and wraiths are not clear to players creating a new character, and the interesting aspects of them are not perticularly fun to play.
For half orcs, halflings, gnomes, trolls, and northmen the advantages and disadvantages are not significant at moderate to high levels, nor are they fun or interesting to play.
I believe dwarves, elves, and humans have their popularity from the 'classic' factor.
To sum up, I believe the reasons races ARE used is mostly because they are:
I don't think half orcs, halflings, gnomes, trolls, and northmen, should necessarily be removed, however there should IMHO be racial abilites for them made, which make them interesting and fun to play.
All of the humanoid races (all except quetzalcoatl, dragon, and fireborn), are rather plain. Sure wraiths are a little interesting, and snakemen are nice with how they are about to use 4 rings. I believe that the interesting things about snakemen, quetzalcoatl, and wraiths are not clear to players creating a new character, and the interesting aspects of them are not perticularly fun to play.
For half orcs, halflings, gnomes, trolls, and northmen the advantages and disadvantages are not significant at moderate to high levels, nor are they fun or interesting to play.
I believe dwarves, elves, and humans have their popularity from the 'classic' factor.
To sum up, I believe the reasons races ARE used is mostly because they are:
- Fun and interesting to play
- Are 'classic' (player can identify with them easily)
- Snakemen, wraiths, and quetzalcoatl may be a little interesting, but the interesting factors are not clear to players, and those factors arn't perticularly that fun for most people either.
- Half orcs, halflings, gnomes, trolls, and northmen, are reletively uninteresting, don't have anything making them more fun than 'classic' races, and are not as easily identified with.
I don't think half orcs, halflings, gnomes, trolls, and northmen, should necessarily be removed, however there should IMHO be racial abilites for them made, which make them interesting and fun to play.
-
justinchudgar
- Newbie
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:08 pm
- Location: Weed, CA, USA
- Contact:
I tend to agree with the previous post. I've never been the slightest bit tempted to play a half-orc, halfling, gnome, or northman because they seem, well, boring and stinky. I'm playing a fantasy game and I'd prefer to either be myself - human - or to be bigger, stronger or more dangerous.
My experience with wraiths is that the immunity to poison and the lack of hunger more than make up for the fire vulnerability, especially at early levels.
I'd be happy with fewer races and fewer classes, though it does not seem to be very important either way.
My experience with wraiths is that the immunity to poison and the lack of hunger more than make up for the fire vulnerability, especially at early levels.
I'd be happy with fewer races and fewer classes, though it does not seem to be very important either way.
Some of the problem may be targeted character you want to play.
If you're going to play a barbarian type character with no spell casting, I can't think of much reason to take a half orc over the troll - the troll is going to be a better choice there (but even then, few folks play trolls)
I suspect the number may be skewed for dwarves - tharat is the first race that pops up when making a new character, so if a player just takes the default, he gets a dwarf.
Gnome and halfling might be good for rogue type play, but crossfire really doesn't have any good mechanism for that, so not a lot of reason to play them.
I think Dragon may be one of the easier races to play, since it really is a combat race that you don't ned to worry much about equipment with.
If you're going to play a barbarian type character with no spell casting, I can't think of much reason to take a half orc over the troll - the troll is going to be a better choice there (but even then, few folks play trolls)
I suspect the number may be skewed for dwarves - tharat is the first race that pops up when making a new character, so if a player just takes the default, he gets a dwarf.
Gnome and halfling might be good for rogue type play, but crossfire really doesn't have any good mechanism for that, so not a lot of reason to play them.
I think Dragon may be one of the easier races to play, since it really is a combat race that you don't ned to worry much about equipment with.
I don't know what a more recent poll would show, but I doubt much has changed.
I do actually like and even prefer some of the lower ranked races, the bottom 4 are actually among my favourites, but I'd like to provide a breakdown of the races from a newbies persepctive.
Lizardmen are strong and stat strong without having any glaring weaknesses.
Half-orcs poison ability is suprisingly useful for throwing out poisoned food and they make a good alternative to northmen
Halflings do have that stealth and stealing benefit which is useful to character building and some classes (hiding has saved my hide on occassion, though it is a flawed skill)
Gnomes having pray opens up a good number of possibilities for classes
Dwarves are probably popular because of smithing and the strength of their stats
Fireborn make good casters and are one of the few strong choices for those roles
Elves are an obvious choice for casters and their charisma is a strong benefit.
The rest is mostly cool factor and some other strengths or quirks, but if you look at those numbers it's more a case of having 5 strong classes and 8 middling, though I wouldn't say those 8 are bad.
Humans are just odd, they're a safe bet statistically but their bonus skill is too random. it could be something amazing or useless to you. I once made a human who picked up literacy as a skill...
I do actually like and even prefer some of the lower ranked races, the bottom 4 are actually among my favourites, but I'd like to provide a breakdown of the races from a newbies persepctive.
Lizardmen are strong and stat strong without having any glaring weaknesses.
Half-orcs poison ability is suprisingly useful for throwing out poisoned food and they make a good alternative to northmen
Halflings do have that stealth and stealing benefit which is useful to character building and some classes (hiding has saved my hide on occassion, though it is a flawed skill)
Gnomes having pray opens up a good number of possibilities for classes
Dwarves are probably popular because of smithing and the strength of their stats
Fireborn make good casters and are one of the few strong choices for those roles
Elves are an obvious choice for casters and their charisma is a strong benefit.
The rest is mostly cool factor and some other strengths or quirks, but if you look at those numbers it's more a case of having 5 strong classes and 8 middling, though I wouldn't say those 8 are bad.
Humans are just odd, they're a safe bet statistically but their bonus skill is too random. it could be something amazing or useless to you. I once made a human who picked up literacy as a skill...
-
cavesomething
- Forum Fanatic
- Posts: 852
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 2:07 am
- Location: Hemel Hempstead
Do you know about this page? Possibly some of the descriptions there could do with updating, and it looks like you have considered the matter in some depth.
I suspect there is an issue with odd choices of characters being made for many new players, and I'd suggest the current race selection interface has something to do with that, the 'hit d if you are done or something else for the next race' approach is fairly clunky and doesn't easily allow for comparison between a set of choices.
I know Mark has a plan for a new character generation system, so hopefully that'll address some of that.
I suspect there is an issue with odd choices of characters being made for many new players, and I'd suggest the current race selection interface has something to do with that, the 'hit d if you are done or something else for the next race' approach is fairly clunky and doesn't easily allow for comparison between a set of choices.
I know Mark has a plan for a new character generation system, so hopefully that'll address some of that.