Quote:
Originally Posted by HippoNipple
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I am with you on that.
I would pick a dwarf or barbarian warrior over ogre if you got all those bonuses.
Dwarf vs Ogre
-20 str
-12 sta
+20 Agi
+35 Dex
+20 all resists
Barbarian vs Ogre
-7str
-7sta
+32agi
+20dex
+20 all resists
Rogues would be ridiculous for the evil side compared to barbarians. Classic era would be cake for Barbarians.
naked Barbarian vs DE rogue in full reavenscale
+52str
+40sta
+1 agi
+2 dex
+7 vs magic
-2 vs disease
-3vs po ison
+15 vs cold
+15 vs fire
|
Yep, that's the idea. Make the Good and Newt teams more appealing by buffing their stats. You might have inflated the Dwarf a little though, if you applied the +20 bonuses instead of +10, because Dwarves can only be Neutral team, so they would get the lesser bonus of only +10 (see
this post by Faerie for the complete race/class breakdown by team). Good Barbarians can't be rogues, either, so it would really just be Good Barb warriors who had near-parity to Ogres (minus the frontal stun immunity and + some DEX). Neutral Barb/Dwarf warriors and rogues would still be very strong with their +10 bonuses though.
Each team would come with its pros and cons that would hopefully result in a relatively equal population split among dedicated players. I could see some hardcore types going Good for the underdog factor and the stat bonuses, while other hardcores would favor Evil for their race/class advantages and the extra challenge (but also opportunity, since it would mean not even your own team could contest you for spawns without a fight) of FFA PvP. Then you'd have the Neutral team occupying a large middle area, with no real weaknesses, good racial choices and large natural zone control. It would be a fun dynamic and would be interesting to watch how it played out.