Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Why the racial roller coaster?

  1. #1
    Forum Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,165

    Why the racial roller coaster?

    Every age, changes boost and nerf. A race gets played a ton in one age, then very little in another. Another race gets played little one age, then gets a boost and is suddenly a top choice. This racial roller coaster has been going on forever, but why? Why not, instead of nerfing anything next age, just bring other races back to the states in which they were played heavily and give everyone an actual full selection of viable choices to play with?

    Offhand...

    Avians - return ambush immunity

    Dwarf - now that they are leaning towards T/M, give them a better offensive spellbook

    Elf - no need to add anything

    Faery - return +1 mana in war

    Halfling - return +2 offspec

    Human - obviously needs nothing added

    Orc - return 13/2 elites

    Undead - return +3 offspecs and stronger elites


    and put Dryad out of its misery... I realize you wanted to make a race specifically tailored to low activity, but it's really a waste of a race because you're catering to only a relatively small handful of players and not supporting the majority of your kingdom-based team-based players. Not to mention, what kingdom would want their biggest offenses in the hands of their least active players? Dryad is too specific and does not fit in the mold of Utopian races and their ability to fill several different roles. It's an awkward anomaly that will never really get much use as it is designed, while changing the design defeats the purpose of the race in the first place, so it's a lose/lose.


    But back on topic... the racial roller coaster doesn't need to keep happening. Giving every race a worthwhile status puts their usage levels back in the hands of kingdoms and how they want to fit them into their setups. Every age it seems as though there is always "one or two obvious attacker choices" and "one or two obvious T/M choices" and the rest just get scattered usage across the game. Why not have all four attacker choices as equally viable and all four T/M choices as equally viable, while maintaining the usual hybrid viability across several races?

  2. #2
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,830
    Because that's not how it works?

    You can't take an age where Orc was the popular attacker race, an age where undead was the popular attacker race, and an age where avian was the popular attacker race and end up with an age with an even distribution of avian, undead, and orc. One of them will be seen as the best choice (ignoring other races) and that'll be the popular attacking race of that age.

    It doesn't have anything to do with being objectively good or bad. It has to do with being good or bad relative to the other races.

    Also, popularity isn't the best indicator of quality. Undead is always a popular option because with no food needed and plague immunity, it's a very easy province for people to manage, even if it isn't the strongest choice

  3. #3
    Forum Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Palem View Post
    Because that's not how it works?

    You can't take an age where Orc was the popular attacker race, an age where undead was the popular attacker race, and an age where avian was the popular attacker race and end up with an age with an even distribution of avian, undead, and orc. One of them will be seen as the best choice (ignoring other races) and that'll be the popular attacking race of that age.
    Why not? Why does that have to be "how it works" just because that's the only choice we've been given for the past decade? I'm talking about real change here, something the devs are trying to create. Why not make ALL races popular choices? Then races become a strategic choice, not just a numbers choice.

    It doesn't have anything to do with being objectively good or bad. It has to do with being good or bad relative to the other races.
    read, out loud, what you wrote there... then read what I wrote about giving all races equal appeal based on strategic uses... you'll see you just proved my point.

    Also, popularity isn't the best indicator of quality. Undead is always a popular option because with no food needed and plague immunity, it's a very easy province for people to manage, even if it isn't the strongest choice
    I don't think you are using "popularity" in the right way here. Races are chosen because they have the biggest number values. Orc and Undead have always been the most commonly used attacker races simply because they have the highest offensive values. Faery likewise for its defensive value. What I'm saying is, make ALL races popular choices, for their own individual merits and how they fit into a particular kingdom's setup plans.

    "Popular" has to do with being liked. You're confusing popular with necessary. Large offensive values are not popular as much as they are necessary in this game, so Orcs are not as much popular as they are necessary for instance. To compete, you need what is necessary. I'm saying, level the playing field of choices and bring some "popularity" into the race landscape.

    Let's talk from an attacker perspective for instance...

    You like a setup that does a lot of damage to the enemy? You have Orcs!

    You like a setup that has a lot of speed and growth potential? You have Avians!

    You like a setup that has a lot of sustainability? You have Undead!

    You like a setup that has strong economic advantages? You have Humans!

    But their numbers? Those are not that far apart. Right now, the four major attacker races have base offensive values of 11, 11, 12 and 9.5(averaged Undead). It's the extra stuff that makes kingdoms select races for their attackers. Right now, for instance, Human has the most "extra stuff" compared to other races, so it makes them the most "necessary" choice. Their offense is not much different than an Orc or an Avian, but they have superior elite defense plus superior economy and science, which beats extra damage and gains or extra speed and birth rate any day.

    For attacker races right now, Humans are well rounded; the rest are one-dimensional. I say we make them all well-rounded in their own ways. Let kingdoms choose based on how they want to play their age; not just on which numbers are the best.
    Last edited by Verminator; 06-06-2017 at 02:58.

  4. #4
    Post Demon Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Verminator View Post
    Avians - return ambush immunity
    Ambush immunity is a ****ty mechanism that shouldn't exist, so lets not bring it back.
    Avians have access to Anon same as all other races. Anon is good enough for everybody else, it's good enough for Avians.
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  5. #5
    Forum Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Elldallan View Post
    Ambush immunity is a ****ty mechanism that shouldn't exist, so lets not bring it back.
    Avians have access to Anon same as all other races. Anon is good enough for everybody else, it's good enough for Avians.
    Builders Boon exists, why give Dwarves faster build times?

    Homes exist, why give Halflings more population or Avians more birth rate?

    Bloodlust exists, why give Orcs more damage on the enemy and themselves?

    Blah blah blah... you're missing the point.

    All races have bonuses to mechanisms that make them "better" than the existing mechanism. That's what makes them special. Avians get ambush immunity, which is only a bonus of 15% land gains compared to the other races who have to use Anonymity to protect their land from ambush. A circumstantial floating 15% land gain bonus (not every attack gets ambushed) is hardly a game breaking bonus.

  6. #6
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Verminator View Post
    Why not make ALL races popular choices?
    For the same reason that not everyone can be rich. It's the very nature of duality. If there are no "bad races" then there are no "good" races either. What you're asking for is an idealistic scenario where races are perfectly balanced and contain no inherent advantages over the other races, at least the ones sharing a similar role.

    Then races become a strategic choice, not just a numbers choice.
    The races are already a strategic choice and they have been for quite a long time. How many times did top kingdoms pick dwarves when the war kingdoms considered them garbage? The warring kingdoms I (and most of the community) have the most respect for are the ones that find success with setups that most kingdoms wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole

    read, out loud, what you wrote there... then read what I wrote about giving all races equal appeal based on strategic uses... you'll see you just proved my point.
    I didn't. There will always be a "best" attacking race, but that doesn't mean the other races aren't good in their right. The fact that people don't want to choose them doesn't mean they're objectively bad, it means they're "bad".

    I don't think you are using "popularity" in the right way here. Races are chosen because they have the biggest number values. Orc and Undead have always been the most commonly used attacker races simply because they have the highest offensive values. Faery likewise for its defensive value. What I'm saying is, make ALL races popular choices, for their own individual merits and how they fit into a particular kingdom's setup plans.

    "Popular" has to do with being liked. You're confusing popular with necessary. Large offensive values are not popular as much as they are necessary in this game, so Orcs are not as much popular as they are necessary for instance. To compete, you need what is necessary. I'm saying, level the playing field of choices and bring some "popularity" into the race landscape.

    Let's talk from an attacker perspective for instance...

    You like a setup that does a lot of damage to the enemy? You have Orcs!

    You like a setup that has a lot of speed and growth potential? You have Avians!

    You like a setup that has a lot of sustainability? You have Undead!

    You like a setup that has strong economic advantages? You have Humans!

    But their numbers? Those are not that far apart. Right now, the four major attacker races have base offensive values of 11, 11, 12 and 9.5(averaged Undead). It's the extra stuff that makes kingdoms select races for their attackers. Right now, for instance, Human has the most "extra stuff" compared to other races, so it makes them the most "necessary" choice. Their offense is not much different than an Orc or an Avian, but they have superior elite defense plus superior economy and science, which beats extra damage and gains or extra speed and birth rate any day.

    For attacker races right now, Humans are well rounded; the rest are one-dimensional. I say we make them all well-rounded in their own ways. Let kingdoms choose based on how they want to play their age; not just on which numbers are the best.
    I disagree with most of this analysis.

    1. I don't mean popularity as most liked. Go to the race/pers page. See the race that is the most played? That is the most popular race. Any interpretation that is different than that is not what I'm talking about.

    You based your entire suggestion around finding the ages that races were the most played (popular) and using those to give us a full line-up of strong races to compete against each other. What I'm saying is that having the most people play a certain race isn't indicative of whether or not that was the "best" race that age. There were lots of ages that Humans and/or Dwarves were much stronger than Orcs or undead but ghettos didn't want to touch them so they weren't as popular.

    2. Why do you believe that the strategic flexibility you want doesn't exist? I'm not as familiar with the recent changes and playing environment, but the idea that players are restricted to one play style that is determined by which races happen to have the largest numbers is silly. If you want to run a kingdom that works on fast attack times, what's stopping you from running an avian set up? Being suboptimal and unviable are two different things.

  7. #7
    Forum Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Palem View Post
    For the same reason that not everyone can be rich. It's the very nature of duality. If there are no "bad races" then there are no "good" races either. What you're asking for is an idealistic scenario where races are perfectly balanced and contain no inherent advantages over the other races, at least the ones sharing a similar role.
    Who says we need good and bad choices? Maybe I misspoke, used the wrong wording. We need all *viable* choices. Worthy choices. Races can have advantages over other races and still all be on equal footing for viability. An Undead can stop a fast growing Avian in its tracks with plague. An Orc can damage a Human's economic strength with a strong massacre. It's not about being better than everyone else; it's about being different than everyone else but still a worthy option to fit different strategic approaches. Remember, Utopia is a strategy game, but just having "good and bad" races makes strategic choices much simpler and more bland.

    The races are already a strategic choice and they have been for quite a long time. How many times did top kingdoms pick dwarves when the war kingdoms considered them garbage? The warring kingdoms I (and most of the community) have the most respect for are the ones that find success with setups that most kingdoms wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole
    Why do y'all keep proving my point while thinking you're disproving my point... Top kingdoms use different strategies than war kingdoms, which is the exact thing we should be aiming for. Dwarves can be equally as viable as Humans in this game, but for different reasons, allowing both to be used in different setups. Let's have this across all of Utopia instead. Why not strive to expand on the different but equally viable strategy usage that different styles of kingdoms use?


    I disagree with most of this analysis.
    Then you are wrong. Sorry. Still love you!

    1. I don't mean popularity as most liked. Go to the race/pers page. See the race that is the most played? That is the most popular race. Any interpretation that is different than that is not what I'm talking about.
    But it's not the most popular race. Read the definition of popular. It reads "liked by many" not "has the best numeric statistics" right? Yes, I'm looking at that page. How many of those Humans do you think are the result of a monarch saying "This is what we will use for our attackers this age because it is the race with the superior stats" and the players saying not "OH I LIKE HUMANS!" but "Okay you're the boss, I see the numeric advantage they have, let's go win some wars."

    Most monarchs and kingdoms use races for their statistical advantage in a numbers game. Lest you forget, Utopia is also a game based on numbers. The few that use races for their intriguing strategic potential are the ones we should be paying attention to (yes, those same you mentioned above, oh look it's my point) and striving to emulate.

    You based your entire suggestion around finding the ages that races were the most played (popular) and using those to give us a full line-up of strong races to compete against each other. What I'm saying is that having the most people play a certain race isn't indicative of whether or not that was the "best" race that age. There were lots of ages that Humans and/or Dwarves were much stronger than Orcs or undead but ghettos didn't want to touch them so they weren't as popular.
    While I appreciate your attempts to tell me what I meant to say, what I'm actually suggesting is just a way to give each "lacking" race a boost to bring them closer to equal footing with other races of their particular commonly used role. I was taking abilities and bonuses that races no longer have, but were stronger when they did have them, so that all the races could meet on the same field of play when it came time to pick teams for kickball.

    2. Why do you believe that the strategic flexibility you want doesn't exist? I'm not as familiar with the recent changes and playing environment, but the idea that players are restricted to one play style that is determined by which races happen to have the largest numbers is silly. If you want to run a kingdom that works on fast attack times, what's stopping you from running an avian set up? Being suboptimal and unviable are two different things.
    It barely exists because every age, some races get nerfed into obsolescence for no particular reason, often after having a strong age the previous time around. Others were weak and unused one age, only to be thrust into superiority the next. Flexibility is limited because the game can't stop changing its mind about what is strong and what is weak, forcing players to just roll with the changes and be pushed along with the current.

    If you want to run a kingdom that works on fast attack times, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage because the race you'd choose for that particular setup is inferior to the race most other kingdoms have chosen. You may "want" that fast attack setup, but it doesn't allow you to compete. Having all races on closer to equal footing allows everyone to compete closer to equally but with different setups. Competition viability meets strategic flexibility.

  8. #8
    Strategy Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Verminator View Post
    Who says we need good and bad choices? Maybe I misspoke, used the wrong wording. We need all *viable* choices. Worthy choices.
    ...... Having all races on closer to equal footing allows everyone to compete closer to equally but with different setups. Competition viability meets strategic flexibility.
    your talking about near perfect balance, and thats insanely hard to do. Even when 1 combo is by far the "best" that doesnt mean its considered 'viable." Way back when my kd went 7/7 always waring kds 110% our nw/size and we had 15 of a race/combo where the rest of the server only ran 1 of them. As the ages progressed more and more kds ran them as they got how powerfull it was.

    Thing is what you "want" is multiple choices. But thats simply should not happen as the game "evolves" and new mechancis get added/removed its going to **** balance. Every change means theres new ****...game is still adjusting to heretic which makes any defensive race into a possible t/m. You saying dwarf is more t/m oriented how about a buff to its spells. How about we simply say heretic is to strong and nerf it untill dwarf warrior is better than dwarf mystic?

    If u want to really go into everything last age was pretty balanced yet undead was too strong when chained and orc was to weak compared to avain....they "balanced" those 3 this age, but then introduced kingdom ritual which completely negated those 3 compared to dwarf. Its always going to be a game, and your welcome to play on the test server/comment on age changes but its not "bad" to have a constantly changeing "Whats best" as it requires you to have long term kd planning as well as "war"plan.
    Last edited by Persain; 07-06-2017 at 06:29.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •