An "anti-suggestion"

Yes.

 

"When everything is the same, nothing is special."
I don't find homogenous mechanics for the races to be especially interesting.
"Fair", but boring.

 

amen

 

Here is something to consider for all of you who think unique racial advantages are the way to go:

If you are right, then why stop with races? Shouldn't your childhood have an effect on your skills? Your birth planet could provide various passive advantages and disadvantages. THEN you could have been born under some special constellation, which sets the theme for your life path. THEN you had to be raised a certain way. Maybe you were home schooled, orphaned, or something else with unique effects. THEN you had to go somewhere, to find yourself on the ship that gets attacked at the beginning of Starbound's story line. This specific type of ship or allegiance would have various effects on your character. Soon, there are so many little nitty-gritty mechanics that boost or nerf your character that you can either build something totally OP or woefully ineffective. This is just like Dungeons & Dragons, where you have to spend hours to study every class and all the feats and builds and stuff. Now, I love D&D, and there is always a place for deep character customization, but I want to be able to teleport back to my ship, change my gear, and teleport back down with an entirely new play style without being punished for some decision I made in the first few minutes.

"When everything is the same, nothing is special."
Chess is widely regarded as possibly the best competitive game ever devised.
Both players use the same basic mechanics. I still think Chess is special.
How you PLAY is what makes the game special.
Passive bonuses are just ways to pressure players who use that race to play in that one style.

 

It think perhaps you should read this.

 

The slippery slope is not always a fallacy. It is under three specific conditions that cover most common uses of the slippery slope argument, but that's an entire lecture I'd rather avoid.

Simply put, if the logic behind some proposal is valid, then there also needs to be some counterbalance that makes in invalid under certain conditions. I.E.: If driving faster is better, then everyone should drive at the highest possible speed. This is an effective slippery slope argument because it suggests that there must be a counterbalancing condition (At high speeds you have less control and there is more danger, so the better claim is that "driving faster is better as long as it is still safe"). In other words, it says "that is not true under these conditions, because under these conditions there would be an obvious problem."

In this case, the point is that it is not helpful to add more customizing options under the condition that they can not be easily changed. Gear/tech can easily be changed, but starting an entirely new customized character can be a big pain.

When viewing something that you suspect is a Camel's Nose argument, pay particular attention to whether the person is saying that something will actually happen, or if they are theorizing based on the person's logic.

 

God I'm glad m english teachers don't go on the forums I go on.

 

And then there's the part where miniscule racial bonuses don't mean you have to add significant ones...

I mean really, why are people of the perception that "racial bonuses" automatically imply massive changes to gameplay?

At any rate I'm just about done with this thread, it has a meaningless, contextless poll that can be interpreted however benefits the OP, the people within it are thickheaded and stubborn beyond belief, and there really is no chance of changing the minds of either those who want big bonuses or those who believe one race being a single pixel shorter would horribly ruin the game entirely.

tl;dr you're all starting to sound like idiots.

 

Slippery Slope Fallacy.

Chess has also been mathematically derived and boiled down to a series of optimal plays; to the point where a supercomputer can compete (and beat) the very best chess player in the world.
It's not so special when you realize that the overwhelming majority of gambits (and thus "styles) are mathematically inferior.

It's a matter of semantics at this point, because anything that's out of balance will pressure players into one style or another; not just race, but weapons, armor, gear and anything else the player chooses too.
To put it into context: Racial modifiers that augment a strategy are good. Modifiers that enable/cause one strategy to always win/fail regardless of circumstance are bad.

This is the most valid argument I've seen on the matter, and I agree with the sentiment to a point.
It's best to not break the game with the player's first choice. I've played games that have done that, and it sucks (Might and Magic 7 springs to mind).
However, I have also played games that allow for specialization and ingenuity to coexist; rather than blunt-forcing your way through every problem doing the same thing you're specialized to do.
(Deus Ex foremost)

So this comes across as avoiding the problem rather than making the attempt to solve it.

 

A mere 5% bonus or reduction to certain types of weapons would be more than enough for me to feel uncomfortable about choosing a race that is ill-suited for my class or play style. If all of the races have equal ability and access to all weapons, then I can make my character look like I want it to without that constant, irritating feeling. It might not make a very noticeable impact on gameplay, but if that is the case then why implement the bonuses at all? Consider that in Terraria, the highest grade accessory mods for boosting damage only did so by 4%-- Those little bonuses really add up. In the end, it is arguable whether anything like this would make a huge impact on the actual game, however it would definitely impact how people play, and how they feel. This is why I brought up D&D. If I wanted to satisfy my inner munchkin, I'd be playing the most complicated game I could get my hands on and micromanage every little decision. But this is Starbound, I just want to dig in the ground and shoot stuff in dungeons, without feeling like I'm sub-optimal for life because I wanted my character to look a certain way. Chalk it up to OCD, if you must. That 5% just might be like the pencil that is out of place that I absolutely HAVE to straighten.

tl;dr that's because both sides are arguing based on how these sorts of gameplay elements make them feel.
And just as the Vulcans teach, feelings make people sound like idiots.

The Slippery Slope is not always a fallacy. Ask any Philosophy Teacher or Debate Coach. Many disadvantage arguments are won by proving that the brink of a particular slippery slope is not a fallacy. The two situations are easily mistaken. If I had worded it like thus, "If we do things your way, then next you'll be asking for more and more!" Then it would be a fallacy because I would be claiming that something is going to occur when there is insufficient evidence. However, I did not discuss things that would/might happen, I rather pointed out the logical consequences of someone being right. If you actually read my post then you might have recognized this thanks to my safe driving example.

tl;dr It seems to me that you are making a Hasty Generalization. The majority of Slippery Slopes are fallacious, but not all of them are.

I actually prefer Go-- I only used Chess as an example because I figured some people might not know about Go (which is not solved, and I can beat most Go AI programs). Also, a supercomputer being able to solve chess does not mean that the game is bad/worse. It just means that the game is simple, and simplicity is the key to many excellent games. Tetris is simple, and I'm sure a supercomputer would be better at it than any human. The thing is, I'm sure any game could be dominated by a sufficiently powerful computer, but that has nothing to do with what makes the game fun. When I play chess with someone, the fact that a really powerful computer could beat either one of us is totally irrelevant.

It's not even about game balance, although game balance is certainly a good thing. Like I mentioned in the first section of this post, my objections are based on two things-- The fact that players feel pressured to make choices based on what will help their style of play (Players who like Rocket Launchers wouldn't pick a race that weakens Rocket Launchers, it goes against their inner munchkin), and I think most players want to feel free to make their character look like whatever they want. Vanity Slots are put in games for this very reason, but you can change armor. You can't change race.

 

I think that races should have one native ability that is not super special or overly useful. Just something interesting and fun that other players could easily get with accessories. Let's say that Avians fall slower and therefore take less fall damage. That would be neat and interesting, but not super great because they are still taking damage. It would make diversity among team members encouraged for early game bonuses, but not necessary. Also, I think most people intend to have multiple characters of different races. It would make the early game experience vary from race to race.

However, I completely agree that giving one race a percent bonus and handicap in certain stats would be annoying. This would make the endgame stat potential for one race to be greater than the others. Swimburn used the example of Lizardmen having a handicap on their ranged damage. So lets say that it's a -5% handicap, and that at endgame he equips five items that all give +10% ranged damage. He would end with a +45% ranged damage. But lets say humans have +5% ranged damage and equip the same items. That human would have +55% ranged damage. This means that on a team there would be no reason to every make a lizardman a gunner.

As fascinating and enlightening as this discussion is, I think we all know that races will just be for the visuals only. And I don't think that their is anything wrong with that. You have to also consider that they are planing to include mod support, so really I expect there to be many different takes on this subject implemented in mods. It should be interesting to see how they turn out.

 

Well, I'll chalk it up to personal objection, and not an objectively-oriented truth.
Honestly, I also just want to dig around and shoot stuff; but I would not mind some racial modifications that alter how I interact with the environment (early game) OR modifications that the player unlocks for their characters over time (late game).

If the end result places each race on similar footing at end-game regardless of "munchkinism", I'm happy with that. (mainly because I don't fixate on end-game. Every part of the game should be interesting, not just the beginning and end)

Based on Tiy's attitude towards the matter, I'll probably have to develop or download a racial mod to do so anyway, assuming modding is still allowed on release.

Instead of going in circles about whether you think it's a fallacy or not, I'll just say this:
If you insist in pursuing that line of thought, you must question EVERY SINGLE VARIABLE the player has a choice in; not just race, because ALL OF THEM PRESSURE THE PLAYER.

Granted, in development you should ask two questions for each mechanical element you include:
"Should this exist?"
"What degree of influence should I intend it to have?"
And that alone justifies commenting on what is otherwise a purely-subjective, useless ping-pong topic.

Depends entirely on what one defines as "fun".
My point there was that no game is inherently "special" based solely on how deep it is.

People have different experiences; a game is simply a system of player input for an output of some sort of experience. So beyond balancing the game to provide legitimate challenge or fair competition, I do not see any element as being inherently superior/inferior.

Metroid Prime is a mechanically sound game; heralded as "The Citizen Kane of Gaming" (no, I am not kidding or exaggerating).
But mechanically, it's piss-easy, and the player doesn't have much in the realm of choice barring arbitrarily increasing the difficulty by avoiding upgrades.
So most of the appeal is in the experience; the aesthetics, scale and size of exploring a large alien environment.

Munchkinism and twinking is inherent unless all variables are static. Period.
Given how much of this game is going to be procedurally generated, munchkinism is inevitable.

You can change characters, and items are transferable. Barring any sort of grind elements, I don't see this being much of a problem.

The only way I can see racial modifiers being a problem, is if they mechanically render the game one-sided.

A player who weighs the aesthetic benefits above the mechanical benefits will still have that choice.

As a matter of opinion (from here on out), it makes no sense to me to include multiple races and have them all behave the exact same manner.

Yes, games are based on the concept of arbitrary logic rather than those of reality, but it subtracts from my experience when I know that my aquatic race is just as shit in the water as everyone else.
(going by the game's logic, procedurally-generated monsters vary mechanically based on what they spawned with)

 

There will still be some amount of forcing the player to do something.
First of all, you might not get a weapon that fits your play style.
Fr example, if i find 2 randomly generated super-weapons:

A sword that gives 100 dmg and has 15% critical strike
A gun that gives 100 dmg and a bonus to movement speed

And imagine my playing style is using magic. Then i will be forced to use either a sword or a gun. Because finding another randomly generated super-weapon that would fit my play style is an unlikely thing. So there will always be some degree of forcing player to do something. I don't care much about that myself, since i'm a shifter and can fit to almost any play style.

Also, if you are starting to count every little thing, then there will never be balance in starbound. Include terrain. Include how well the computers of both players work. Include... So, as you see, there will always be some amount of imbalance, and racial bonuses(if they are planned out carefully) don't create enough imbalance to make any real difference.

Another thing supporting my previous statement is that these bonuses should be approximately equal. For example one race can see slightly better in the dark than the others. Another race has a slightly higher view distance. Which one is better? Which one will help you in battle more? Neither. Both are approximately equal. And no one said those racial bonuses have to be titanic and ground-breaking.

Finally, starbound isn't even a competitive game. So there is no need for 99% balance. 98% will suffice i think.

And the arguments i've already given once. They are very similar to what i gave above, just maybe explained better. This was my answer to another user when he said something about the same thing:

 

These are the exact types of bonuses I myself am against.
I was for stuff like avians getting a 12% slower fall on account of hollow bones, or apex jumping a single block higher, things of that nature, direct statistical benefits to combat are horrible, things that are slight benefits to exploration are exactly what Starbound could use.

In fact, your statement defines why I denounce the views of your "side", you believe it has to be all or nothing and refuse to see anything but 100% equal races as acceptable.

 

I do believe that anything but 100% equal races in unacceptable, but I think I have fairly good reasons to. If one species could jump one block higher, I'd view that as far and away much more useful than another race having lesser fall damage. When you fall a great height, you are likely do die anyway, but if you can jump slightly higher then it could give you a very noticeable edge in a lot of situations-- It would change how you build, making structures that are easy for your race to navigate, but might require additional accessories or items for others to do the same. If there is a race that has tiny +1% health, but the other races have various benefits that I find are not helpful at all, then I would want to choose that race purely because it is the best option available. This is why I say you can blame OCD in my case; even though it could be something that other people like yourself could easily overlook, it might totally irk and irritate me. The funny thing is, I'm not even a power-gamer; I typically run challenges like no armor in Terraria, or FFVIII without any GFs. In order to do those challenges, I have to maximize every option I do have, and that is something I find fun.

Even if these racial mods were canceled out by late game equipment, it still impacts early game. They would effectively be an extra accessory that can never be changed on that character that you can start the game with, so you may as well have it be an early game accessory. Just because you can make a new character and transfer things over doesn't mean it should be necessary to satisfy your twinking fix. In other words, munchkins should not have to pay the cost of character aesthetics. Races should just be skins, like picking your hairstyle.

And yeah, ranged is going to be way more useful in Starbound for all the same reasons that range is better in almost every game. Even in fighting games, projectiles are insanely useful and tend to define the strategies that those characters use. I know that balance is something that will never be fully achieved, but like I said- my point isn't even about balance. It is all about the fact that including racial modifiers will bug a lot of players, but very few would really mind races that are just cosmetic.

I think the main thrust of Starbound's gameplay in regard to character roles is that how your character plays and what items they pick should be based on the various things they have found and crafted instead of what choices they made earlier on. Instead of declaring "I will be a melee fighter this time" and then remaining dedicated to melee bonuses and weapons, each player will start out saying "What is in store for me today?" They may find a good ranged weapon and use that for a while, boosting it up with appropriate items. Then they may find an awesome melee weapon and switch equipment because what worked yesterday may not work today. If I feel great one day because I got good ranged items and my race is good at ranged, then I'll be icky the next day because I only got melee stuff that will always feel sub-par. If the bonuses are not direct bonuses for combat, it doesn't change this feeling. If I already have reduced fall damage or higher jumps from my racial, I won't be as happy when I find something that doesn't have as much synergy with it (or worse yet, cancels it out).

I know there will be people who make mods for racial bonuses, but I'm incredibly glad that the Devs are not going to include them in the core game. In fact, it is for this reason that I'm fairly sure the Devs will add an android race instead of the life aquatic. Androids fit better with the Sci-Fi theme, and it would be weird for Sea People to not be better underwater.

tl;dr---
As someone who spends most of his time arguing that everyone needs to compromise and find the middle ground, I simply think the Devs were very wise to make Races be entirely superficial in the core game. The people who are insistent on racial bonuses are the minority, and there will no doubt be mods that create various racial bonuses, so everyone gets what they want.

 

If I have a weapon that might be a good for a certain race I'll just sell it to someone of that race.
This is called player market, it will exist. Most people will go specific for fighting or speed bonuses.
Your arguments for difference in races assume it won't exist is wrong, period.

 

First of all, he gave those as examples only. Imagine that one race could see slightly better in he dark, while another could see slightly farther. Both are useful in different situations, and yet they are not large enough to create any imbalance. And if they build their houses in slightly different ways - it's only better. Because it would give you a feel of really being from a different race. You can find a balance if you want to.

But in early game nothing is really balanced. And a race being only a skin is wrong. If that's so, then just call it by it's real name damn it. In character selection call it "skin type" and be done with it. The definition of a "race" includes more than just different appearance.

I wouldn't say very few would mind. And balance is not as important since this is not a competitive game. But even so, look at World of Warcraft as an example. Racial bonuses? Check. Now look at how many players it has... Of course, i don't suggest anything like that, i'm for the idea of utility racials that don't influence combat.

Yes, i agree you should be able to change that. That's why the bonuses should be small and utility. With a slightly increased movement speed you can either reach your enemy faster if you are melee, or you can keep your distance if you are ranged for example. I'm pretty sure you can balance racials so they would be neutral and would still let you take the role of whatever you want.

I already gave a few possible solutions. See them in my quote of myself below

If they are PURELY COMSETICAL then they are not races any more. Also, i gave a few suggestions of how to find middle ground. One of them was a compromise that you could choose whether they are enabled or disabled in your created world/server.
I'll quote the definition:

So races among humans are different in more than appearance already. That's why there were only black sprinters in the Olympics. Now imagine how different intergalactic races should be. So if they will be purely cosmetical, they SHOULD NOT be called races any more.

 

Text walls eveywhere, screw this thread

 

Convergent evolution is a concept that states that as beings evolve, certain traits are likely to be well suited to any environment.
These traits would probably include thumbs that can grasp tools, development of a powerful frontal lobe of the brain, and several others.
Why not say that all creatures inevitably evolve towards being human in everything except appearance? It's science! Anthropocentric, but still, SCIENCE!
Also, agreed, the text walls are getting so dense that I'm having trouble seeing the logic behind any of them. [/joke]

 

World of Warcraft is a battle based game, without racial differences you couldn't spend at least months on one character then have to try another.
This game, Starbound, has combat, but is it noted that it is exploration based. The game is not all about fighting, while it may be a large chunk of what you do.
If the devs leave it up to the players to decide this decision will rip the community to pieces, over and over again. They won't make that mistake.
Most of you are being highly ridiculous, you are each only seeing your own opinion, I consider and think about the opinion of the oposition.
And just saying bombzero, thank you, showed the page to the logical fallacies.
Did anyone notice that every single one of you used the strawman fallacy?
This is a dissappointing thread and should in my opinion be closed before we start getting even more trouble.