Don't make ogre a fat human


Although the central place for this kind of discussion is on the CDO wiki, some may find it helpful to discuss potential requests and suggestions here first.

Dungeon Master

Posts: 538

Joined: Thursday, 23rd October 2014, 03:08

Post Wednesday, 29th March 2017, 19:27

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

sooheon wrote:I should add that I think Ghouls are an apt comparison here. They have claws to start the game, *and* clearly better apts for UC. Does this remove meaningful choice? If so, by virtue of starting with claws, they should get -2 or lower UC to compensate. If we think Ghouls are at a good place, I think we'd be justified to give Ogres +1 for clubs. Not ridiculously high like +3, but not a clear negative either.

ghouls lose the main benefit of UC which is forms. the comparison might be appropriate if ogres were only allowed to wield +3 unbranded GC/GSCs or something

Floodkiller wrote:If it is impossible design wise to either raise Ogre M&F to 0 or reduce the higher weapon apts to -1 to match without ruining decision making for alternative weapons, then I recommend giving Trolls a higher M&F that matches or exceeds UC instead. People who want a species that is good at hitting things with a big stick can be happy, and people who want to create more decisions for a species can be happy that Trolls get more options than always UC. It's a win-win!

the real answer is to drop their UC to like -3 or something, they can handle the nerf

For this message the author CanOfWorms has received thanks:
duvessa

Spider Stomper

Posts: 242

Joined: Sunday, 23rd March 2014, 23:51

Post Wednesday, 29th March 2017, 19:45

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

CanOfWorms wrote:the real answer is to drop their UC to like -3 or something, they can handle the nerf

The real answer is to replace Trolls only going UC with Trolls only going M&F? Also please don't reply with the solution to also drop the M&F to -3 as well, I don't think Trolls need to become large mummies.

For this message the author Floodkiller has received thanks:
Seven Deadly Sins

Dungeon Master

Posts: 538

Joined: Thursday, 23rd October 2014, 03:08

Post Wednesday, 29th March 2017, 20:24

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

but trolls are already large mummies, except they can actually punch???

Halls Hopper

Posts: 60

Joined: Tuesday, 24th January 2017, 21:44

Post Wednesday, 29th March 2017, 20:29

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

bel wrote:Read this thread.

Pretty fun read, actually. Half way through it I forgot that it was a years-old thread and had to figure out how I'd gotten there.
Yiufcrawl, a dcss fork with extra species
Pu, LO, HE, SE, "MD", Im, ST, BK, viewtopic.php?f=17&t=23209

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 7765

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Wednesday, 29th March 2017, 20:29

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

My proposal for Tr was to increase their weapon apts but reduce their hp modifier to 0 or -10% or maybe lower. This does start to eat into vine stalker's space though.

Spider Stomper

Posts: 242

Joined: Sunday, 23rd March 2014, 23:51

Post Wednesday, 29th March 2017, 20:31

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

CanOfWorms wrote:but trolls are already large mummies, except they can actually punch???

Being able to do anything at all is still better than mummies, which are their own tier.
User avatar

Vestibule Violator

Posts: 1655

Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05

Post Wednesday, 29th March 2017, 21:49

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

hey now, mummies can hang out and scum OoD spawns

Swamp Slogger

Posts: 163

Joined: Wednesday, 29th December 2010, 22:32

Post Wednesday, 29th March 2017, 22:47

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

duvessa wrote:The average maces aptitude is about -0.7. -1 isn't very far below average, and giant clubs are still a no-brainer on ogres, anyway (which is why I suggested nerfing it to -2 or -3, not -1).


This is preposterous to me. Giant clubs and large rocks are special weapons which are stronger than usual but usable exclusively by large races. The ability to use those powerful offensive options represents most of the advantage that large species get, to counteract the many negatives associated with large size (like poor armor access and poor evasion). Of course players of large races are disproportionately likely to take advantage of that. Why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't you want them to? Why have giant clubs in the game at all otherwise? Why have large races at all otherwise? That's a big part of what makes Ogres feel different to play than other options! And Ogres feeling different to play is a good thing. Hell, why have weapon skills at all? If you insist that a random sword, mace, and axe all be perfectly equally desirable for all characters at all times, then there's no point in having a bunch of different weapon skills. There's no point in having a bunch of different weapon types.

And besides, if you try to balance giant clubs against axes by torpedoing the M&F skill, then any Great Mace you find just becomes the thing you discard as garbage. What's the difference between a human who junks every Giant Club, an old-ogre who junks every Executioner's Axe, and your proposed ogre who junks every Great Mace? What problem is being solved there which justifies flattening out the experience of playing an Ogre versus playing a Human?


CanOfWorms wrote:
Floodkiller wrote:If it is impossible design wise to either raise Ogre M&F to 0 or reduce the higher weapon apts to -1 to match without ruining decision making for alternative weapons, then I recommend giving Trolls a higher M&F that matches or exceeds UC instead. People who want a species that is good at hitting things with a big stick can be happy, and people who want to create more decisions for a species can be happy that Trolls get more options than always UC. It's a win-win!

the real answer is to drop their UC to like -3 or something, they can handle the nerf


This is even more preposterous! Awesome unarmed damage is like 99% of the reason anyone picks a Troll. They have a really, really strong melee weapon at all stages of the game, without being at the mercy of random drops or an uneven power curve. No other species has this feel. They pay for it with fire weakness, bad defenses, and awful aptitudes in a lot of other things. What possible advantage could there be to go out of your way to try to systematically nullify the chief thing that makes Trolls feel interesting and appealing to play? If you gut the effectiveness of Troll UC until UC versus any other combat mode is a total wash, then how are you going to distinguish Trolls from other options? How are you going to make Trolls feel like anything other than Shit Minotaurs?


Like, okay, giant clubs and claws being good means that Ogres and Trolls are probably not thinking super hard about weapon drops. They are forgoing a decision-point that a Human Fighter would probably make in the same situation.

1) So what? A Deep Elf isn't going to think very hard about a dropped Executioner Axe. A Minotaur isn't going to think very hard about a dropped Necronomicon. A Naga certainly isn't going to think very hard about whether or not they should spend gold on a pair of artifact boots in the shop. To my knowledge, none of these are considered problems! There are always plenty of other decisions to make. Depending on your species and background, some will be easier and some will be harder. That strikes me as normal and healthy. Different characters should be expected to invest different amounts of attention on different aspects of their playstyle; that's what makes them feel different from one another.

2) If all special racial benefits are meticulously counterbalanced to the point that taking advantage of that unique benefit is a total wash compared to ignoring it and doing any other random thing...then that's not an interesting decision being made either! Because it's all going to turn out basically the same no matter what you choose; you might as well flip a coin. And now species selection feels really muddy and boring and samey.

I simply don't see the benefit of going crazy trying to make every option equally valid for every character at every time. Bringing Ogres' spellcasting attributes up is a good idea because it helps them feel further differentiated from other smashy species like Trolls and Minotaurs, who all previously tended to share the "sucks at magic" drawback. And M&F needs to be dropped from +3 to +1 to help ensure that investing experience into magic feels competitive with investing experience into melee, then fine, I get that. But "change M&F from +3 to -3 because we want to make sure nobody ever accidentally gets excited about getting to equip a GSC as an Ogre" is ridiculous. Comparing weapon stats is not the be-all end-all of what makes this game worth playing, such that that all other facets of design must be sacrificed at its altar.

For this message the author Sjohara has received thanks: 17
ereinion, Floodkiller, ichbins, nago, prozacelf, Rast, Scalding Steam, Seven Deadly Sins, Shard1697, Speleothing and 7 more users
User avatar

Vestibule Violator

Posts: 1655

Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05

Post Wednesday, 29th March 2017, 23:10

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

It ought to be acknowledged more that choices like "what kind of weapon/character to I want to have" are, for the most part, made at character select. If someone wants to play a character who uses polearms, they are likely going to choose merfolk, hill orc, etc. And if they want to play a character who uses giant clubs, they are going to pick ogre. People don't choose between weapon types in the middle of a run.

There is no point in making weapon apts like ogre/merfolk/etc "balanced" because species choice and weapon choice are overwhelmingly made at the same time. What is the benefit of having species with big apts for one weapon changed to flat apts? If it's supposed to open up more choice at the character select screen, it doesn't really accomplish that, because you already have the choice of using a different weapon via pressing 1 more button and choosing a different species. And it definitely doesn't make any sense if it's supposed to open up more choice during a game in progress, because switching weapon types after investing XP is virtually unheard of and a terrible idea.

It also should not be ignored that it is fun to have a big apt which makes your skill go up fast. Stuff like this is a huge reason of what makes certain things feel satisfying in RPGs, where so much of the enjoyment of the game revolves around making numbers go up.

For this message the author Shard1697 has received thanks: 13
Elitist, ereinion, Floodkiller, ichbins, monkeytor, pedritolo, Seven Deadly Sins, Speleothing, Ultraviolent4, zackoid and 3 more users

Swamp Slogger

Posts: 163

Joined: Wednesday, 29th December 2010, 22:32

Post Wednesday, 29th March 2017, 23:31

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

Shard1697 wrote:It ought to be acknowledged more that choices like "what kind of weapon/character to I want to have" are, for the most part, made at character select. If someone wants to play a character who uses polearms, they are likely going to choose merfolk, hill orc, etc. And if they want to play a character who uses giant clubs, they are going to pick ogre. People don't choose between weapon types in the middle of a run.

There is no point in making weapon apts like ogre/merfolk/etc "balanced" because species choice and weapon choice are overwhelmingly made at the same time. What is the benefit of having species with big apts for one weapon changed to flat apts? If it's supposed to open up more choice at the character select screen, it doesn't really accomplish that, because you already have the choice of using a different weapon via pressing 1 more button and choosing a different species. And it definitely doesn't make any sense if it's supposed to open up more choice during a game in progress, because switching weapon types after investing XP is virtually unheard of and a terrible idea.

It also should not be ignored that it is fun to have a big apt which makes your skill go up fast. Stuff like this is a huge reason of what makes certain things feel satisfying in RPGs, where so much of the enjoyment of the game revolves around making numbers go up.

Honestly I would argue that weapon selection doesn't quite work that way. Mostly on the grounds that the difference between one weapon school and another just...aren't that significant or interesting. It works out more like this for me:

-If I want a book start who can get a melee option online quickly, I will gravitate towards something like Merfolk. And then I'll pick spears as a matter of course.
-If I want a bookless start who is going to live or die by the weapons I find, I'll probably pick Hill Orc or Minotaur or something, because they're good at lots of weapons and are flexible about taking advantage with whatever I get first. (I don't necessarily give a damn if I keep my starting weapon school.)
-If I want to be guaranteed a good weapon early and then branch out into other things later, maybe I take something like an Ogre.
-If I want to be guaranteed a good weapon and fuck the world, maybe I pick Troll.

That feeling of "I will definitely get a giant club and it will definitely be awesome" is part of what makes Ogres distinctive. They have their own power curve which isn't quite the same as everyone else's. If they were expected to hem and haw over spreadsheets and fsims to decide which of five different random weapons were worth using every single game, it just makes them feel that much less distinctive than human warriors. And if you think always using a giant club is boring and have more fun agonizing over weapon choices there's a ton of species that still offer that.

Similar to the Ogre question: is it bad that Merfolk are so good at polearms? I don't think so. It's good that Merfolk are successful at hybridizing melee and magic; that's part of their niche. If you gave them +3 in everything instead of +4 in Polearms and -X in Axes and Maces, it wouldn't really make them that much more or less powerful...but it would make switching from playing Merfolk to playing Hill Orc less interesting. If I play a bunch of Merfolk Ice Elementalists and then decide to try Hill Orc Fighters for a change, I'm way more likely to end up with an axe than a spear, which means I'll experience what it's like to have cleaving instead of reach, which makes the experience more distinct. If Merfolk and Hill Orcs were both +2 in everything because it makes choosing between weapons harder for both of them, you lose that. If I get in the habit of using spears on Merfolk I'd probably just keep using them on other races as well because why not? I don't like that. I like having a reason to branch out try different things. Merfolk being good at ice and bad at other elements isn't just a bad false choice; it means that I'm probably going to be exposing myself to a different set of racial benefits if I want to try out earth magic as opposed to ice magic.

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 7765

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Thursday, 30th March 2017, 00:58

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

fr: trolls get rF-

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 7765

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Thursday, 30th March 2017, 01:00

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

If you are sincerely interested in the rationale behind these changes, read the OP here (the rest of the posts in the thread are irrelevant).

Swamp Slogger

Posts: 163

Joined: Wednesday, 29th December 2010, 22:32

Post Thursday, 30th March 2017, 02:20

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

If you're going to explicitly disincentivise the use of the signature large-character mechanics, than what remains to distinguish new Ogres from Draconians? Draconians also have mostly-flat aptitudes, some equipment restrictions, and more durability than a typical human wizard thanks to extra HP and AC. If all Ogres are contributing is slightly shuffling around how much of your durability comes from HP versus AC versus EV, and nothing else about them is distinctive, then is that really enough? We even have Gargoyles as another fairly versatile race with good-but-weirdly-distributed defenses.

If the goal is to make Ogres more unique, then taking the two things about them that's already pretty distinctive compared to most races (giant clubs and boulders) and arraying their aptitudes in a way that makes those things look like a blight on their design that you're trying to handwave away makes no sense. "HP sack" alone isn't enough without the giant flavor.

The current commit as it actually stands is mostly alright, I think. I would much prefer it if their M&F was +1 or at least 0 (why would polearm skill be higher than M&F?) but it's not really a dealbreaker.

For this message the author Sjohara has received thanks: 3
Seven Deadly Sins, Shard1697, Speleothing

Mines Malingerer

Posts: 35

Joined: Thursday, 6th October 2016, 15:14

Post Thursday, 30th March 2017, 03:32

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

duvessa wrote:[...](the rest of the posts in the thread are irrelevant).


Isn't this ironic in an open forum, to deem only your contribution worth reading?

Anyways, could not agree with sjohara's post above more:

A Deep Elf isn't going to think very hard about a dropped Executioner Axe. A Minotaur isn't going to think very hard about a dropped Necronomicon. A Naga certainly isn't going to think very hard about whether or not they should spend gold on a pair of artifact boots in the shop. To my knowledge, none of these are considered problems! There are always plenty of other decisions to make. Depending on your species and background, some will be easier and some will be harder. That strikes me as normal and healthy. Different characters should be expected to invest different amounts of attention on different aspects of their playstyle; that's what makes them feel different from one another.


Access to huge weapons is what Ogres get in return for all the drawbacks of being huge. Everyone knows that +30 hp does not outweigh the lack of slots and dodge debuffs until quite a ways into the game. Just like the insane magic apts is what DE gets for being so frail.

For this message the author sooheon has received thanks: 3
pedritolo, Seven Deadly Sins, Speleothing

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 7765

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Thursday, 30th March 2017, 03:39

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

I meant that the rest of the posts in that thread don't contain any further information about the rationale behind the changes. Certainly it's possible that they contain something else worth reading, just nothing relevant to what I linked the thread for. It seemed like better form to indicate that in some way, instead of saying "hey go read this entire thread".
sooheon wrote:Everyone knows that +30 hp does not outweigh the lack of slots and dodge debuffs until quite a ways into the game.
You really think statements of the form "Everyone knows [flagrant falsehood]" are going to help?

Swamp Slogger

Posts: 163

Joined: Wednesday, 29th December 2010, 22:32

Post Thursday, 30th March 2017, 04:08

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

It's true, I don't really know for sure exactly how good a job +30% HP does at counteracting large-size penalties. And I have even LESS idea how Ogres with +40/50% HP would stack up against Draconians with +10% HP plus some AC, or how those stack up against Gargoyles with -20% HP but a ton of AC. Barely any players have that knowledge. Which is why Ogre HP pool alone doesn't work as a primary distinguishing mechanic for a race. Draconians have clear HP and AC bonuses backed up by flavorful mutations. Gargoyles have more nebulous defensive bonuses backed up by very noticeable immunities. Ogres need the giant weapon flavor to back up their stats or they just aren't interesting enough. (Or something completely new, I guess, but the GSCs and boulders are what we have available right now.)

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 5383

Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06

Post Thursday, 30th March 2017, 06:21

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

Sjohara wrote:It's true, I don't really know for sure exactly how good a job +30% HP does at counteracting large-size penalties. And I have even LESS idea how Ogres with +40/50% HP would stack up against Draconians with +10% HP plus some AC, or how those stack up against Gargoyles with -20% HP but a ton of AC. Barely any players have that knowledge. Which is why Ogre HP pool alone doesn't work as a primary distinguishing mechanic for a race. Draconians have clear HP and AC bonuses backed up by flavorful mutations. Gargoyles have more nebulous defensive bonuses backed up by very noticeable immunities. Ogres need the giant weapon flavor to back up their stats or they just aren't interesting enough. (Or something completely new, I guess, but the GSCs and boulders are what we have available right now.)

The thing is Ogres still *have* GSC and large rocks. Nothing has changed in that regard, and playing a giant club wielding, large rock throwing ogre is still a good way to play an Ogre, it's simply a matter of the other choices you have once you select ogre as your race are now more competitive.

The problem is you're comparing new ogres to old ogres, but they aren't in the same game, old ogres don't compete with new ogres at all, the question is, how does it play as a race, and how does it compare to *the other races that are in the game*

Comparing new ogres and old ogres is as useful as comparing new ogres to sludge elves.

To look at this from another perspective, what if the M&F aptitude was left at +3, and the polearms, staves, UC, and spell skills were raised to be at the same place proportionally to M&F (polearms & staves to +4, UC to +3, Spellcasting to +5 and all spell schools to +3)

Would you still complain about Ogre's niche of being a large club user was being taken away? Would somehow raising all those other aptitudes equal to or above M&F make Ogres suddenly not have the "big slab of poorly defended hit points with some better than average melee options" niche available to them? or would you just say now there were some other additional choices for playing an ogre?
Spoiler: show
This high quality signature has been hidden for your protection. To unlock it's secret, send 3 easy payments of $9.99 to me, by way of your nearest theta band or ley line. Complete your transmission by midnight tonight for a special free gift!
User avatar

Vestibule Violator

Posts: 1655

Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05

Post Thursday, 30th March 2017, 07:42

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

Siegurt wrote:Would you still complain about Ogre's niche of being a large club user was being taken away? Would somehow raising all those other aptitudes equal to or above M&F make Ogres suddenly not have the "big slab of poorly defended hit points with some better than average melee options" niche available to them? or would you just say now there were some other additional choices for playing an ogre?
That is exactly what I want. Positive M&F apt alongside the spellcasting buffs.

I don't care about Ogre polearms and staves because if I want to play a character with polearms or staves I will not play an ogre, because I(like most people) play ogres nearly exclusively for large clubs and that's not changing anytime soon. Better unarmed is more welcome because Tm ogre is more distinct from other Tm than "ogre with polearm/stave" is from other characters with those weapons, in the way it alleviates defense issues that most species don't have and also the fun of stacking up huge HP with forms+ogre base HP.

For this message the author Shard1697 has received thanks: 3
hairmachine, pedritolo, sooheon

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 5383

Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06

Post Thursday, 30th March 2017, 15:04

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

Shard1697 wrote:
Siegurt wrote:Would you still complain about Ogre's niche of being a large club user was being taken away? Would somehow raising all those other aptitudes equal to or above M&F make Ogres suddenly not have the "big slab of poorly defended hit points with some better than average melee options" niche available to them? or would you just say now there were some other additional choices for playing an ogre?
That is exactly what I want. Positive M&F apt alongside the spellcasting buffs.

I don't care about Ogre polearms and staves because if I want to play a character with polearms or staves I will not play an ogre, because I(like most people) play ogres nearly exclusively for large clubs and that's not changing anytime soon. Better unarmed is more welcome because Tm ogre is more distinct from other Tm than "ogre with polearm/stave" is from other characters with those weapons, in the way it alleviates defense issues that most species don't have and also the fun of stacking up huge HP with forms+ogre base HP.


So therefore this boils down to "I think ogres should be more powerful"

It has nothing whatsoever to do with niches or percieved roles or racial uniqueness, that is all just a smokescreen for "i want more power" which is a reasonable way to feel as a player, but has nothing to do with constructing a good game.

Also your contention that "I(like most people) play ogres nearly exclusively for large clubs" may have been true in the past, but the objecive here is to not remove that reason from playing ogres (this change doesn't do that), but to add more possible reasons to want to play them in the present and future.
Spoiler: show
This high quality signature has been hidden for your protection. To unlock it's secret, send 3 easy payments of $9.99 to me, by way of your nearest theta band or ley line. Complete your transmission by midnight tonight for a special free gift!

For this message the author Siegurt has received thanks:
duvessa

Mines Malingerer

Posts: 35

Joined: Thursday, 6th October 2016, 15:14

Post Thursday, 30th March 2017, 15:51

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

Siegurt wrote:So therefore this boils down to "I think ogres should be more powerful"

It has nothing whatsoever to do with niches or percieved roles or racial uniqueness, that is all just a smokescreen for "i want more power" which is a reasonable way to feel as a player, but has nothing to do with constructing a good game.

Also your contention that "I(like most people) play ogres nearly exclusively for large clubs" may have been true in the past, but the objecive here is to not remove that reason from playing ogres (this change doesn't do that), but to add more possible reasons to want to play them in the present and future.


Is it fair to characterize your position as "I think ogres should be less powerful"? If not, and all you care about is the relative strengths of weapon choices, why the insistence that ogres get -1 M&F? If you truly want to "add more possible reasons to want to play them", then equalize ogre play options by buffing polearms, not by nerfing M&F. If +3 apts and GSC is too strong, make it 0 or +1. If that's still too strong, nerf GSC (lower ACC, increase delay, whatever). After all, since Ogres and Trolls are the only ones who can wield giant weapons, nerfing the weapons and nerfing the races is equivalent.

Not everyone plays games the same way, and I can't speak for everyone's psychology, but I would much prefer, as a player, nerfing GC/GSC and buffing ogre apts to +1 over the current solution. Even if it does not mean a power level difference, and it's the exact same end result for the ogre+gsc combo.

For this message the author sooheon has received thanks:
Elitist

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 5383

Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06

Post Thursday, 30th March 2017, 17:06

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

sooheon wrote:
Is it fair to characterize your position as "I think ogres should be less powerful"?

Well, it would be closer to say that i think that m&f at +3 and gsc would be too powerful given the additional options that more skills brings, i think adding more flexibility adds power to the race, and it is therefore appropriate to reduce the power of the formerly singular option.

I don't think new ogre is actually significantly less powerful than old ogre, but i do think you seem to think new ogre should be more powerful than it is.
sooheon wrote:Not everyone plays games the same way, and I can't speak for everyone's psychology, but I would much prefer, as a player, nerfing GC/GSC and buffing ogre apts to +1 over the current solution. Even if it does not mean a power level difference, and it's the exact same end result for the ogre+gsc combo.


Well that would be a fairly similar solution, it would increase early game power and decrease late game power, but -1/+1 isn't a huge change.

I don't really see why -1 vs say +1 is psychologically significant, can you speak more on why you would prefer that? The actual difference isn't really very big, is it just a perception thing about it being a penalty vs neutral or a benefit?

For me personally, if gsc/gc were weaker, the impact of them being a special weapon wouldn't make them an interesting enough choice to make me want to play ogres to use them.
Spoiler: show
This high quality signature has been hidden for your protection. To unlock it's secret, send 3 easy payments of $9.99 to me, by way of your nearest theta band or ley line. Complete your transmission by midnight tonight for a special free gift!

Spider Stomper

Posts: 242

Joined: Sunday, 23rd March 2014, 23:51

Post Thursday, 30th March 2017, 18:14

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

Siegurt wrote:I don't really see why -1 vs say +1 is psychologically significant, can you speak more on why you would prefer that? The actual difference isn't really very big, is it just a perception thing about it being a penalty vs neutral or a benefit?

For me personally, if gsc/gc were weaker, the impact of them being a special weapon wouldn't make them an interesting enough choice to make me want to play ogres to use them.

My psychological preference for wanting a matching or higher M&F on ogres stems from the fact that early monster ogres (and the majority of ogres in the game) are equipped with GCs and GSCs, which implies that ogres are good at using M&F. However, their current aptitudes suggest that ogres are better at using polearms and staves, which only start to become well represented by ogre mages much later in the game. This is a player/monster contradiction that feels awful flavor wise (how come monsters are better at using the heavy clubs than I am?) and also gameplay wise (smaller numbers are less fun than bigger numbers, so I'm discouraged from using the thing the monster version of me uses most often), even though it is more interesting mechanically and from a design standpoint of preventing a species from being pigeonholed.

You aren't going to remove this bias (whether rational or irrational) from players who have been playing before this change unless you change the aptitudes to have M&F either tied or exceeding the highest weapon aptitude for the species (even if that means nerfing GCs/GSCs to compensate). If you don't care about older players, then there are more options available to ensure newer players are less likely to have this bias:
-Make GCs/GSCs on monster ogres rarer, make them more likely to spawn with polearms/staves
-Rename either plain monster ogres or player ogres
-Introduce other large weaponry
-Increase troll M&F and give monster trolls the GCs/GSCs instead
-Scythe-ify GCs/GSCs to show that it isn't intended for players to use them, only as a way to increase monster threat

Swamp Slogger

Posts: 163

Joined: Wednesday, 29th December 2010, 22:32

Post Thursday, 30th March 2017, 18:40

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

Siegurt wrote:
Sjohara wrote:It's true, I don't really know for sure exactly how good a job +30% HP does at counteracting large-size penalties. And I have even LESS idea how Ogres with +40/50% HP would stack up against Draconians with +10% HP plus some AC, or how those stack up against Gargoyles with -20% HP but a ton of AC. Barely any players have that knowledge. Which is why Ogre HP pool alone doesn't work as a primary distinguishing mechanic for a race. Draconians have clear HP and AC bonuses backed up by flavorful mutations. Gargoyles have more nebulous defensive bonuses backed up by very noticeable immunities. Ogres need the giant weapon flavor to back up their stats or they just aren't interesting enough. (Or something completely new, I guess, but the GSCs and boulders are what we have available right now.)

The thing is Ogres still *have* GSC and large rocks. Nothing has changed in that regard, and playing a giant club wielding, large rock throwing ogre is still a good way to play an Ogre, it's simply a matter of the other choices you have once you select ogre as your race are now more competitive.

The problem is you're comparing new ogres to old ogres, but they aren't in the same game, old ogres don't compete with new ogres at all, the question is, how does it play as a race, and how does it compare to *the other races that are in the game*

Comparing new ogres and old ogres is as useful as comparing new ogres to sludge elves.

To look at this from another perspective, what if the M&F aptitude was left at +3, and the polearms, staves, UC, and spell skills were raised to be at the same place proportionally to M&F (polearms & staves to +4, UC to +3, Spellcasting to +5 and all spell schools to +3)

Would you still complain about Ogre's niche of being a large club user was being taken away? Would somehow raising all those other aptitudes equal to or above M&F make Ogres suddenly not have the "big slab of poorly defended hit points with some better than average melee options" niche available to them? or would you just say now there were some other additional choices for playing an ogre?

To clarify, my position isn't really "M&F -1 is unacceptable" or "flatter Ogre aptitudes are unacceptable"; it's more that the Duvessa/CanOfWorms-style suggestions that M&F/Throwing aptitudes (or UC for Trolls) should be reduced further until they're the among worst aptitudes is unacceptable. On the grounds that:

1) If something about a species is unique, it should be relevant to their playstyle most of the time, and
2) A species's aptitudes should encourage players to interact with those unique mechanics, and play into the strengths offered by those mechanics. Or at least not DIScourage it.

Introducing Centaurs as a race with innate Swiftness and then giving them -4 Bow/Crossbow/Thrown/Polearms and +4 Axes to mute the effectiveness of a kiting style and make it just as appealing to totally ignore their speed and play as a face-tanker with cleave would make no sense. There's no reason to have the race at all at that point.

If overcentralization of M&F over other weapon schools is actually that big of a problem (I really don't think it is), then the better solution would be to have enemy ogres drop Massive Cleavers, Titanic Blades, and Colossal Pikes just as often as Giant Clubs and then normalize all the aptitudes. Then Ogres would both be benefiting from their giant size and be choosing between skills. But again, I don't think the effort is needed.

Siegurt wrote:
sooheon wrote:Not everyone plays games the same way, and I can't speak for everyone's psychology, but I would much prefer, as a player, nerfing GC/GSC and buffing ogre apts to +1 over the current solution. Even if it does not mean a power level difference, and it's the exact same end result for the ogre+gsc combo.


Well that would be a fairly similar solution, it would increase early game power and decrease late game power, but -1/+1 isn't a huge change.

I don't really see why -1 vs say +1 is psychologically significant, can you speak more on why you would prefer that? The actual difference isn't really very big, is it just a perception thing about it being a penalty vs neutral or a benefit?

For me personally, if gsc/gc were weaker, the impact of them being a special weapon wouldn't make them an interesting enough choice to make me want to play ogres to use them.

That said, I do think that -1 vs +1 is psychologically significant. People like picking a race that rewards them for doing what they want to do. Knowing that almost every skill you're ever going to train is going to be -1 or worse except Fighting/Spellcasting is kind of demoralizing even though it doesn't actually make the character non-viable. And Ogres aren't really as flashy as, say, Demonspawn. (Also, doesn't -1 require like 40% more experience than +1? Sounds like a lot to me.)

Also, the apts in the commit are arguably a newbie trap. We all know that a giant weapon at -1 aptitude is probably going to be better (and almost definitely going to be more readily available) than a Bardiche or whatever at 0. But a novice isn't necessarily going to know that; they could easily look at the skills, say "huh, I guess ogres are best with polearms in this game", and choose the spear in their Ogre weapon starts, when that probably isn't wise unless they're making a reasoned choice to sacrifice damage for reach. Better to at least raise M&F to 0. If M&F is probably going to be an Ogre's best melee option (and it should be, because it's the only melee weapon class that interacts with largeness), and we know M&F is probably going to be an Ogre's best melee option, the aptitudes should describe that to players to at least a small degree.

Nerfing giant club base damage in exchange for aptitude buffs is a bad idea though. Better to centralize the power in the weapon to keep player size compelling as a mechanic, if it's one or the other.

For this message the author Sjohara has received thanks: 4
Seven Deadly Sins, sooheon, Speleothing, Ultraviolent4
User avatar

Abyss Ambulator

Posts: 1243

Joined: Saturday, 18th June 2016, 13:57

Post Thursday, 30th March 2017, 19:32

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

Can't Trolls get a +0 / +1 or higher on m&f instead? This way, the big stick playstile is still viable, good and immediate. If m&f were on par with uc for trolls, it wouldn't increase their power (weapon skills are pretty much exclusive), but still be a strong option in the game. New players can also get large artifacts from the gods!
I Feel the Need - the Need for Beer
3DsBe^Tr, 15DsFi^Ru, 3DsMo^Ne, 3FoHu^Go, 3TrAr^Ok, 3HOFE^Ve, 3MfGl^Ok, 4GrEE^Veh, 3BaIE^Chei, 3HuMo^Oka, 3MiWn^Qaz, 3VSFi^Ash, 3DrTm^Makh, 3DsCK^Xom, 3OgMo^Oka, 3NaFi^Oka, 3FoFi^Oka
http://s-z.org/crawl-dev/

For this message the author Shtopit has received thanks: 4
duvessa, Floodkiller, Gigaslurp, Pereza0

Shoals Surfer

Posts: 262

Joined: Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 09:32

Post Friday, 31st March 2017, 17:04

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

The reason mele ogres shy from big clubs now has very little do do with the +1 polearms apt and everything to do with large race shield interaction.

Early damage vs survivability scaling is just drasticly better with 1h+board unless there is a very spikey weapon apt.

For this message the author NhorianScum has received thanks: 2
Elitist, Speleothing

Shoals Surfer

Posts: 315

Joined: Tuesday, 13th October 2015, 06:02

Post Sunday, 2nd April 2017, 19:21

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

Having m&f at -1 basically means you won't have a min-delay GSC until you've cleared D:1-15, L:1-5, O:1-2, and probably all the Lair Branches if you focus only m&f the whole time. This means you are now forced to pick 1-3 skills and stick to them. Sound more boring now? Yes.

At +3 apt m&f Ogres could typically always have a solid min-delay mace or flail early game. Then, big shock here, Ogres could pour all their exp into magic schools over a longer period of time and still be able to cast well. Guess why? because Ogres always had a min-delay weapon very quickly.

For this message the author TonberryJam has received thanks: 2
Seven Deadly Sins, Speleothing

Slime Squisher

Posts: 386

Joined: Wednesday, 6th July 2016, 02:40

Post Monday, 3rd April 2017, 03:49

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

Why don't we remove just that boring fatsoes?

We already have Draconians with niche in nude + robust + spellcaster, so we won't need that fatsoes anymore.

Former ogres' niche was only being capable of using GC, GSC, large rocks, which had been boring as well,
so just reverting ogre apt change does not seem a good idea.


Remove Ogres, and raise Trolls' M&F apt to +1.

Then now we have nude giant species which can use GC, GSC, large rocks and claws.
http://crawl.akrasiac.org/scoring/players/papilio.html

Done 15-rune wins with all playable species, backgrounds, gods!

bel

Vestibule Violator

Posts: 1540

Joined: Tuesday, 3rd February 2015, 22:05

Post Monday, 3rd April 2017, 08:11

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

Ogres are only like Draconians in the sense of limited early-game armour choice (where they typically have much less AC than comparable Draconians). Unlike Draconians, they can wear dragon armour. Thus, they are not really restricted in armour choice in mid-to-late game, since there are many different kinds of dragon armour, and the player can usually find one appropriate to any kind of build.
User avatar

Slime Squisher

Posts: 344

Joined: Thursday, 1st March 2012, 01:42

Post Wednesday, 4th October 2017, 12:24

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

This is an old thread, I know.

But now that Ogre's aptitudes have changed to something flatter, what about making Big Clubs more appealing to Trolls as an alternative to UC?

This makes the Troll a more general melee user as opposed to just a race that only uses UC.

Buff would by simple, increase their Maces & Flails aptitude to +2 or +1 instead of the -1 they currently share with Ogres.

UC will probably be still king, so its not so much a buff as it is another way to play for a race with little variety

For this message the author Pereza0 has received thanks:
nago

Mines Malingerer

Posts: 44

Joined: Thursday, 24th November 2016, 18:25

Post Wednesday, 4th October 2017, 14:41

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

or rather, nerf troll m&f to -3 and nerf troll UC to -4

Snake Sneak

Posts: 112

Joined: Wednesday, 16th March 2011, 11:05

Post Sunday, 8th October 2017, 12:45

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

or rather, remove all races except human

(pretty sure some people actually want this to happen)

Vestibule Violator

Posts: 1493

Joined: Tuesday, 13th March 2012, 02:48

Post Sunday, 8th October 2017, 17:32

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

syringe wrote:or rather, nerf troll m&f to -3 and nerf troll UC to -4

Is this duvessa's new account?

Swamp Slogger

Posts: 180

Joined: Monday, 4th September 2017, 10:53

Post Monday, 9th October 2017, 06:32

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

Sjohara wrote:
duvessa wrote:The average maces aptitude is about -0.7. -1 isn't very far below average, and giant clubs are still a no-brainer on ogres, anyway (which is why I suggested nerfing it to -2 or -3, not -1).


This is preposterous to me. Giant clubs and large rocks are special weapons which are stronger than usual but usable exclusively by large races. The ability to use those powerful offensive options represents most of the advantage that large species get, to counteract the many negatives associated with large size (like poor armor access and poor evasion). Of course players of large races are disproportionately likely to take advantage of that. Why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't you want them to? Why have giant clubs in the game at all otherwise? Why have large races at all otherwise? That's a big part of what makes Ogres feel different to play than other options! And Ogres feeling different to play is a good thing. Hell, why have weapon skills at all? If you insist that a random sword, mace, and axe all be perfectly equally desirable for all characters at all times, then there's no point in having a bunch of different weapon skills. There's no point in having a bunch of different weapon types.

And besides, if you try to balance giant clubs against axes by torpedoing the M&F skill, then any Great Mace you find just becomes the thing you discard as garbage. What's the difference between a human who junks every Giant Club, an old-ogre who junks every Executioner's Axe, and your proposed ogre who junks every Great Mace? What problem is being solved there which justifies flattening out the experience of playing an Ogre versus playing a Human?


This, exactly. The most interesting decision lies in choosing to play an Ogre in the first place. You guys are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.

For this message the author crawlnoob has received thanks:
Seven Deadly Sins
User avatar

Slime Squisher

Posts: 344

Joined: Thursday, 1st March 2012, 01:42

Post Tuesday, 10th October 2017, 15:08

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

This change makes big clubs take longer to kick in, but they are still very much a reason to play big races. I think it makes sense for them to work differently for Ogres and Trolls, right now they are the same aptitude . For an Ogre they could be more of a heavy lategame investment. If you made the aptitude better for Trolls, they would be another similarly powerful alternative to UC.

For Ogres before, big clubs really were a no-brainer before. If you make them good for Trolls instead, they at least have UC to contend with. Ogres will still have to decide if the possibility of big clubs in the long term make the investment worth it.

Vaults Vanquisher

Posts: 443

Joined: Thursday, 16th February 2017, 15:23

Post Tuesday, 10th October 2017, 15:36

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

You know, I've never understood the fascination with giant clubs. The advantages of being large are 1.) being able to throw large rocks and 2.) lower shield skill requirements to eliminate penalties. Giant clubs should be removed, nothing but a nab trap.
*Lana Del Rey voice* , video games...
User avatar

Vestibule Violator

Posts: 1655

Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05

Post Wednesday, 11th October 2017, 00:47

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

big club do big damage unga bunga

Vaults Vanquisher

Posts: 443

Joined: Thursday, 16th February 2017, 15:23

Post Wednesday, 11th October 2017, 01:19

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

Yeah, but so do rocks. Shield provides a lot more value than a second kind of high damage attack imo.
*Lana Del Rey voice* , video games...
User avatar

Vestibule Violator

Posts: 1655

Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05

Post Wednesday, 11th October 2017, 01:37

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

Well, also most people just don't like ranged combat.

Crypt Cleanser

Posts: 750

Joined: Tuesday, 25th November 2014, 02:47

Post Wednesday, 11th October 2017, 01:49

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

People clearly like big clubs.

They are way more of a noob trap at -1 than they were at +3.

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 7765

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Wednesday, 11th October 2017, 02:05

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

watertreatmentRL wrote:The advantages of being large are 1.) being able to throw large rocks and 2.) lower shield skill requirements to eliminate penalties.
this is such a stupid claim that i wish you weren't on my side

Vaults Vanquisher

Posts: 443

Joined: Thursday, 16th February 2017, 15:23

Post Wednesday, 11th October 2017, 02:21

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

Actually, it is a good claim.
*Lana Del Rey voice* , video games...
User avatar

Slime Squisher

Posts: 344

Joined: Thursday, 1st March 2012, 01:42

Post Wednesday, 11th October 2017, 11:03

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

watertreatmentRL wrote:You know, I've never understood the fascination with giant clubs. The advantages of being large are 1.) being able to throw large rocks and 2.) lower shield skill requirements to eliminate penalties. Giant clubs should be removed, nothing but a nab trap.


Being large has the advantage of being able to use large things more effectively (or at all). Why shouldn't it extend to weapons?

Just because an option is worse doesn't mean it has to be removed, you can also make it work instead. And large clubs have clearly worked before.

Removing should be what you do when you try and you can't make something work or make it interesting, not the first thing you do whenever you come across a problem.
User avatar

Abyss Ambulator

Posts: 1243

Joined: Saturday, 18th June 2016, 13:57

Post Wednesday, 11th October 2017, 13:12

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

Range is imho a more interesting mechanic than simply "more damage". There could be a special polearm that gives +2 range to large species.

Something interesting would also be to give bonus attacks of opportunity to large species: if a monsters enter your threatened area, you get an automatic bonus attack on him (can be limited, like "once per turn"). Just ideas I am throwing out (and stealing from D&D) and can be made much better.

Would it be hard to convey? Yes, in the current situation. But, currently, the game doesn't even attempt to convey other basic stuff (like different MR levels in different species, or what attributes you will automatically gain, or ubiquitous, fiddly stuff like GDR). So it would probably be best if there were "in depth" pages which a player can optionally call up to understand what he's actually doing.
I Feel the Need - the Need for Beer
3DsBe^Tr, 15DsFi^Ru, 3DsMo^Ne, 3FoHu^Go, 3TrAr^Ok, 3HOFE^Ve, 3MfGl^Ok, 4GrEE^Veh, 3BaIE^Chei, 3HuMo^Oka, 3MiWn^Qaz, 3VSFi^Ash, 3DrTm^Makh, 3DsCK^Xom, 3OgMo^Oka, 3NaFi^Oka, 3FoFi^Oka
http://s-z.org/crawl-dev/

Crypt Cleanser

Posts: 750

Joined: Tuesday, 25th November 2014, 02:47

Post Wednesday, 11th October 2017, 14:42

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

FR: add a giant spear and giant spiked spear to the game. These have a range of 3 and are carried by enemy ogres.

Swamp Slogger

Posts: 180

Joined: Monday, 4th September 2017, 10:53

Post Thursday, 12th October 2017, 12:11

Re: Don't make ogre a fat human

Shtopit wrote:Range is imho a more interesting mechanic than simply "more damage". There could be a special polearm that gives +2 range to large species.

Something interesting would also be to give bonus attacks of opportunity to large species: if a monsters enter your threatened area, you get an automatic bonus attack on him (can be limited, like "once per turn"). Just ideas I am throwing out (and stealing from D&D) and can be made much better.

Would it be hard to convey? Yes, in the current situation. But, currently, the game doesn't even attempt to convey other basic stuff (like different MR levels in different species, or what attributes you will automatically gain, or ubiquitous, fiddly stuff like GDR). So it would probably be best if there were "in depth" pages which a player can optionally call up to understand what he's actually doing.


It's funny because it's not just the attack of opportunity that is found in DnD3.5, but the whole large = better melee range is a staple there. Its a very powerful mechanic, that is until you come up against ranged attacks or any magic. DnD allows large creatures to use normal melee weapons to strike an extra square (so an Ogre could use a longsword to strike as if it were a polearm), and allows them to use large weapons for one additional square. Of course, DnD also allows large creatures to wield normal 2handers as 1handers...
Previous

Return to Game Design Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software for PTF.