Difference between revisions of "Rules talk:Sororas Draconis"

Latest revision as of 13:11, 3 May 2015

I'm not sure that the disadvantages necessarily balance out against Excellent bias just yet. Also, "1.5x less PL than starting" is kind of awkwardly written. I'd personally just say that they start with two-thirds the normal starting PL or something. Tiryst 05:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

*rewords the PL penalty* As for the template being balanced, there are a few things I want to tweek a bit, though none of them will overhaul it in a major way. These include a specific 'chart' for elemental weakness as they apply specifically to this minor race, and a little blurb to make playing them a bit more restrictive in some ways. For example, if I see someone make a character using this template and then the only RP I see from the character is adventures in mainland D'hennex that have nothing to do with hunting dragons, I will be quick to pull they 'you're a gay' card and take the necessary steps to correct the discrepancy.

I personally consider starting with 1,000 PL to be a fair trade-off for Excellent bias when the other weaknesses are factored in, mainly because character builds are defined by their first couple of techniques. A PL of only 1,000, even with Excellent bias, will not allow for characters to load tons of techniques into a build and then still start competitive. It will require using a select few to begin with a PL of even over 500. Consider Al's AIs; EMP damage, lack of epiphany, and a reduced gain percentage were all that offset an excellent bias. EMP sensitivity is (and was, in at least two AIs played in the room) easily countered with excellent bias, the lack of an epiphany is negligible, and I have an AI with 4% gains that still started with about 800 PL because the enhanced gain CT was not barred to the race or saddled with a bias increase. That said, a few other ideas I have are...

Write in that racial weaknesses in the form of increased damage are not circumventable via techniques.

Formulate a way to direct that techniques be written with a specific end that conforms to the central theme of dragon-slaying (I'm not to excited about this one given how quickly it can become complicated, but the idea is there).

Restrict the use of this race to only people that I like, which make up roughly 2.2% of the room's players, thereby reducing the potential for abuse by limiting the number in play.

If you have any other suggestions, I'm open to hearing them too. --Snackycakes 07:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that an elemental description of some sort will be worked out. I saw the comment about alignment to elements and just kind of went "what?" though I figured you were still adding stuff. I'd also like to note that the AI minor race is stupid. :)

I would certainly like to see a flat-out inability to negate their increased-damage weakness, though it is sad that it needs to be written out explicitly (much as i hate how EMP sensitivity is allowed to be overcome through techniques). Honestly though the race doesn't seem TOO unbalanced at the moment. I'll wait to see what else you do with the elements and such and comment again later. Tiryst 07:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright fellas, few more changes. In order to strike a balance between player freedom and enforcing a centralized theme, I've provided a list of classical elements to choose from, along with corresponding weaknesses. As well, I've written in that elemental weaknesses and dragon's blood weaknesses cannot be circumvented via the use of techs. Hopefully these changes will make the race strike you as more balanced, but I'm still open to additional tweeking if you guys feel it's necesssary. --Snackycakes 09:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The non-negatable weakness thing seems pretty good to me. I still want to say it's unbalanced (Excellent bias lol) but I think I'm willing to give this the thumbs up if nobody else has any particularly astute observations. Tiryst 18:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with balancing Excellent bias with reduced PL, as opposed to reduced gain, is that while Excellent bias is a continual boost that will benefit the character over its entire life, a reduction in starting PL simply delays the development for a short while, and is not a significant penalty in the long-term. A reduction in gain rate, in contrast, is a reduction in ability to develop the character over the long term. Even factoring Enhanced Gain in, the gain rate is still less than a character with an uninhibited base gain rate would achieve, as even the benefit that Enhanced Gain (as it is a multiplier rather than a flat addition to gain rate) is reduced.

To sum up, yes, reducing the initial PL is a good disadvantage. But I would also like to see a long-term disadvantage to match up with the Excellent bias' long-term advantage. Hroefn ^T 05:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in adding much else on the disadvantage side of things, considering that their elemental weaknesses are actually likely to come into play, though it is granted that some opposing elements are more common than others. I consider a 1,000 starting PL to be a significant disadvantage. Also, I'd like to point out that applied to ogres, the dismal bias not only allowed for over twice the allotted starting power-level, but a whopping 5% gain rate. I don't see why the reverse isn't applicable to this minor race, considering that excellent bias is slightly less potent now that the price paid for techniques is 60% base, not 50% as it was before LOL JUST KIDDING. --Snackycakes 05:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So maybe we can either do the Excellent/Dismal alteration, or perhaps the 1000 starting PL can be changed to a reduction in PL gain (or maybe a reduction in daily cap only, or something)? Tiryst 07:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be more than happy to replace a lowered starting PL with a lowered gain rate as soon as it's written into the rules for AI's that the EMP vulnerability cannot be shielded against. Until then, if any changes are seen as necessary, I vote for the proposed changed to reduce the effectiveness of Excellent Bias.--Snackycakes 16:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hell, I'm good with both of those changes. At least the reduction of Excellent/Dismal effects. Hadn't we already agreed to do that one anyway? Tiryst 21:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This race appears to lack sponsorship. It needs at least two recorded sponsors as described under Rules:Minor Races before it can be considered for approval. --Ice 05:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I thought you had to put it up and THEN get sponsors. I've already got two people (Kim and Marcus) who say they'll vouch for the race. I'll get them to sign off on it the next time I see them. --Snackycakes 07:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not an issue, just saying you gotta have em up there as sponsors before we can approve the thing. You can put it up beforehand all you want :) Just mentioned it because it looked like you were submitting the race for approval. --Ice 09:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am indeed one of the sponsors for this race. And since I took so long in replying to this discussion (lol real life and other stuff lol), most of the unbalancing aspects seem to have been ironed out rather well. I can say that this could be approvable. --Marcus

As well, I'm one of the sponsors of this race, once I get a character created for it. (Also, mostly responsible for the race being created in the first place, lol) After looking through everything, things seem to be in order. --Landra

Okay, on review, I've got three items to broach. First is clarification; With regard to the ability that doubles damage specifically meant for dragons, does that stack with whatever effects already likely exist on such damage sources? Second, a minor balance issue; who determines whether a character's techniques fall in line with the element -- will you be monitoring them yourself? Thirdly, a more significant point of balance; I still don't feel like the race is completely balanced, though I will say that I believe the elemental orientation is a significant push in that direction. I do not believe it quite lives up to Excellent bias, however. As a suggestion: How about if you play on the Sororas' likely inherited cold blooded nature -- Stamina-replenishing or transferring (to) techniques are 2/3 as effective. Alternately, the opposite; techniques that drain stamina from a Sororas are 4/3 as effective. --Ice 19:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

For the first one, are you talking about stacking with other "double damage" effects? If so I would expect this to work along the lines of Nullifier, much as the elemental weakness works. For the third one, boo to the lessened stamina restoration, but only because my Sororas Draconis has a stamina-replenishing technique :) Tiryst 21:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've had a bit of time to consider some stuff, so I'll address Ice's issues first. Firstly, the weakness that doubles damage specifically meant for dragons WILL stack with other weaknesses and/or effects, up to a max of x3 the base damage of the attack. The purpose of this is to both protect members of the minor race by putting a limit on the max damage they can take (as it'd be pretty easy with a combination of specific techs to ramp up insane bonuses against them by exploiting elemental weaknesses in conjunction with anti-dragon techs) and to keep in line with a bit of an unwritten rule that Al uses. Basically, combining nullifier effects (say, the standard nullifier and an ability like Sworn Through Swords, which is basically nullifier vs undead) can only result in 3x base damage without additional stamina drain. It seems like a reasonable limit to me, so I kept the Sororases in line with this. As for the issue regarding whether or not characters keep in line with an elemental theme, I wasn't planning on strictly enforcing this. I've had several people interested in playing a Sororas, and not one of them has abandoned the enforced 'theme' idea. I've yet to see an earth elemental with water techs, for example, and given that the way Alt operates is to have numbers be an across-the-board type thing while stuff like elemental alignment is mostly fluff anyway, I'm not particularly worried that someone will blatantly ignore this requirement. If I see someone doing something out of line, I might approach them about it, but I don't anticipate it at all. As for lowering the effectiveness of stamina techs, I'm not excited at the prospect. An excellent bias is a lot to balance against, but I don't want to end up making a race that's so frail and vulnerable to compensate for the excellent bias that the only purpose it serves is to plug holes in their racial template. I personally consider irrevocable weaknesses, that is, the inability to guard against weakness through the use of techniques, to be a fair trade for an increased bias. If I had to do anything else to tilt the scales, I'd prefer something a little less constricting, like penalizing such techniques with a lowered bias rather than reducing their effectiveness. Btw I hope this all makes sense, I've just slammed three shots of tequila :)

So to recap, I'm still open to changes, but I hope the approving individuals will see them as unnecessary. It's my personal opinion that a 1k starting PL is quite a significant disadvantage, and that the inability to 'cover up' written in racial weaknesses, especially those that are likely to come into play, with the excellent bias is a step in the right direction. A reduced gain rate is still an option, of course, but I much prefer a lower starting PL to fit with the theme established/ by the fluff. Even if Marcus and Kyle sign off on the race as things are, I'd much prefer to have all of the staffers in agreement rather than exclude one that feels the excellent bias is still too much for what disadvantages are written in, so if anyone still feels they're unbalanced after reading my arguments, let me know and I'll actually go back and modify the template before requesting further review. --Snackycakes 03:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to make mention that though Kyle's opinions and commentary are always carefully considered, he is no longer an official part of the staff body, and thus does not possess the power to approve minor races anymore. So, you'll need Marcus and at least one other qualified person to sign off on it.

That said, I'm pretty sure we can come to a very easy compromise here -- I only just now saw the conversation a ways up talking about enacting those changes with tech biases. Should we decide to make the lesser bonus for Excellent bias take place, I would have no problem approving this race as it is. So, I'm going to go make some kind of official section that describes tech biases (because you shouldn't have to browse the common techniques to find more broadly affecting rules) and we can discuss whether and how to change the tech bias bonuses and penalties on that discussion page. --Ice 06:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hell I'm not really sure I was EVER really allowed to approve races :D Apologies for any confusion or misunderstandings that might have occurred concerning my ability (or lack thereof) to approve races. I was just presenting my opinions, which is my current staff duty anyway (and is awesome because I get a gummi to tell you all that you suck). Tiryst 23:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm cool with this race now. APPROVEDAL GET --Ice 00:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)