Racials are better than a personal story.

I get that most people are worried about the meta, but I wouldn’t be.

There’s only going be a small handful that extrapolate the full benefits of racials. Even then they won’t always have conditions where they can optimize them.

But they almost always seem to give better flavor than personal story.

Guild Wars 2 has personal stories, they serve no purpose or utility.

ESO has racials, people still try to follow the meta and will never be able extrapolate the full benefits, they’re just a better flavour.

Ashes spin on racials seem to be the best yet, especially if it stays in respect to racial lore.

And I think that’s the key, having racials in respect to racial lore. Flavorful and only a few can extrapolate the full benefits, but not all the time.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Solvryn

Caww wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Caww wrote: »

Racials ruin your own personal immersion in the sense that now you may be concerned that you short-changed yourself instead of just playing the toon you envision being, I hope they are milk-toast at best.

What???

So, to clarify my statement with an example of where I think racials can be a detraction to immersion rather than an addition. Some races, such a dwarfs, are known to be more physical with their traits but if you want a fire-throwing mage in a dwarf toon, you may be sacrificing efficiency of build and feel that your dwarf just isn't smart enough to be a great mage thus reducing your level of immersion. For this reason I hope racials don't affect the combat/spell aspects of any race, so that all races can be just as effective no matter what combo race and class are used.

Why would your immersion be effected if you still be a fire mage?

Dygz

Caww wrote: »

So, to clarify my statement with an example of where I think racials can be a detraction to immersion rather than an addition. Some races, such a dwarfs, are known to be more physical with their traits but if you want a fire-throwing mage in a dwarf toon, you may be sacrificing efficiency of build and feel that your dwarf just isn't smart enough to be a great mage thus reducing your level of immersion. For this reason I hope racials don't affect the combat/spell aspects of any race, so that all races can be just as effective no matter what combo race and class are used.

I don't understand how any of that is immersion-breaking.
Min/Maxing means that you sacrifice one area of the character build in order to max another area of the character build. IE; place minimal points in CHA in order to place max points in INT.

If you want a Dwarf to be a Fire-throwing Mage, you max the points you can in INT, you wear Magical armor instead of Physical armor, you choose Mage as your Primary Archetype and Mage as your Secondary Archetype and you choose Scholar's Academy as your Social Org. There might even be a Religion that provides Augments which boost Fire abilities.
There will be Racial Augments that affect Active Skills.

We can expect there to be Racial variants of Tanks and Mages and Bards.

How Racial Passives might affect Active Skills - we don't know, yet.

Korela

Meta = pay 100%, get 100% power.
Min/max = pay 50%, get 80% power.
Fun/grief = pay 200%, get 60% power.

That was my understanding of min/max till very today. So, basically real definition of "min/max" is "fun/grief" in my terms, I guess. And I am probably not alone with it.

I see only meta and ways to counter it. Why bother about "pay 200% to get 60% power" without a way to reach the 100% power of meta build.

Well, it is fine if you are playing solo. But if I see fun builds in my group when we are doing challenging content and losing because of it than I feel that I have to waste my time agruing with that funny guy or to kick him and waste my time finding new less funny one.

Noaani

Korela wrote: »

Meta = pay 100%, get 100% power.
Min/max = pay 50%, get 80% power.
Fun/grief = pay 200%, get 60% power.

That was my understanding of min/max till very today. So, basically real definition of "min/max" is "fun/grief" in my terms, I guess. And I am probably not alone with it.

I see only meta and ways to counter it. Why bother about "pay 200% to get 60% power" without a way to reach the 100% power of meta build.

Well, it is fine if you are playing solo. But if I see fun builds in my group when we are doing challenging content and losing because of it than I feel that I have to waste my time agruing with that funny guy or to kick him and waste my time finding new less funny one.

Meta is what people expect you to use. It is generally considered the best, but I have yet to play a game where the general accepted meta was actually best.

Min/maxes will usually be ahead of the meta - because we are the ones that tell you what the meta is, and the rest of you generally just blindly follow it.

Korela

Noaani wrote: »

Korela wrote: »

Meta = pay 100%, get 100% power.
Min/max = pay 50%, get 80% power.
Fun/grief = pay 200%, get 60% power.

That was my understanding of min/max till very today. So, basically real definition of "min/max" is "fun/grief" in my terms, I guess. And I am probably not alone with it.

I see only meta and ways to counter it. Why bother about "pay 200% to get 60% power" without a way to reach the 100% power of meta build.

Well, it is fine if you are playing solo. But if I see fun builds in my group when we are doing challenging content and losing because of it than I feel that I have to waste my time agruing with that funny guy or to kick him and waste my time finding new less funny one.

Meta is what people expect you to use. It is generally considered the best, but I have yet to play a game where the general accepted meta was actually best.

Min/maxes will usually be ahead of the meta - because we are the ones that tell you what the meta is, and the rest of you generally just blindly follow it.

For that thread I am not interested in splitting "meta build" into the "current public meta which is not really the meta but rather generally considered the best build" and "the real meta and true best build, but for now it is known only by very small smount of nerds, dataminers and datascience enjoyers".

And surely not connected with this response, but is it possible to fully hide annoying ignored users with 10k+ posts who's only reason to exists at this forum is to mess with the terms to twist the flow of the conversation? I still able see them, sadly.

Depraved

min maxing is more like picking the optimal path. you can min max how you farm mobs in an area to get a few more mobs per hour than someone who isnt doing that.

its about using your time in the most optimal way.

it's about building your character in the most optimal way. for example, if you put 50 points on int, you get 50% damage, but if you put 100 points on int, then you only get 70% damage. so maybe you do more dps if you put 50 points on int and 50 in casting speed, or 70 in int and 30 in casting, etc.

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

min maxing is more like picking the optimal path. you can min max how you farm mobs in an area to get a few more mobs per hour than someone who isnt doing that.

its about using your time in the most optimal way.

it's about building your character in the most optimal way. for example, if you put 50 points on int, you get 50% damage, but if you put 100 points on int, then you only get 70% damage. so maybe you do more dps if you put 50 points on int and 50 in casting speed, or 70 in int and 30 in casting, etc.

Yeah, it is the minimum effort to get the maximum output.

This, in Korela's example, a person that isn't getting 100% output is by definition not min/maxing.

To be fair, the example I gave above of people telling others what the meta is really is actually just a subset of min-maxers, it isn't the group as a whole.

Noaani

Korela wrote: »

And surely not connected with this response, but is it possible to fully hide annoying ignored users with 10k+ posts who's only reason to exists at this forum is to mess with the terms to twist the flow of the conversation? I still able see them, sadly.

If you don't want me to post a correction of something you said that was wrong, perhaps try not saying things that are so wrong?

I mean, there is an amount of incorrect I don't care about, and then there are things that are incorrect that I don't care about at all, but if you are very incorrect on something I do care about, I'll correct you.

I know, attempting to be correct in the things you say is an outlandish notion!

Abarat

Noaani wrote: »

Min/maxes will usually be ahead of the meta - because we are the ones that tell you what the meta is, and the rest of you generally just blindly follow it.

emphasis added

LOL.

Noaani

Abarat wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Min/maxes will usually be ahead of the meta - because we are the ones that tell you what the meta is, and the rest of you generally just blindly follow it.

emphasis added

LOL.

The sad thing is, it's true.

In every game I have ever played, 90%+ of players just blindly follow a build guide.

Caww

My immersion is broken just knowing that the toon is starting out sub-optimal just based on the race features. Even though most power is gear & skill point related, I'd just rather all races not be channeled into class slots. For me this isn't about min/max but about reaching the full natural potential for all the time that is about to be invested.

CROW3

Well, the natural potential is based on the core benefits / drawbacks to playing that race.

Are you unable to successfully reach your natural potential as a human being because you don’t have bird wings? No, your potential is based on the natural constraints of your form.

Child Item