There are a few things I'd like to reply to, because some questions/concerns seem to be popping up more than others, and some also seem to be based on rumours/misconceptions.
1.
"Is there any point to feedbacking if you have already decided on this change?"
Okay, so, I think that is my mistake for making it sound like we have 100% decided on this "small stat modifiers approach". That's not true. What I prestented was our decision _before_ we brought it to the public. Depending on what we learn here, our decision regarding what to do with races might change. I asked for feedback and your help with thinking of problems we may not have thought of regarding our new racial balance idea, and of course if things come up that turns what we thought was a good idea into a less good idea, we will of course adjust it. And if someone suddenly sparks an idea that appears to be better, we'll of course explore that too. So, everything you players say here _does_ matter.
2.
"If the stat modifiers are so small they barely matter, why have them at all?"
That is a very good question, and one we have debated back and in the AoB team as well. Both before and after we presented this idea to you. It's like Zizuph said earlier, we wanted it as balanced as possible, while still keeping _some_ differences, so you at least can get a small benefit in certain "chracter builds". But just like Zizuph, I would also be okay with making races cosmetic only. So, that's definitely an option that's still on the table.
3.
"Can't we have even stats, but have other things that differentiate the races. Like skill boosts, abilities, resistances, etc?"
Yes, like I explained in my original post, that was one of our four "main ideas". We explored both combat-related stuff and smaller "utility" abilities. For example letting dwarves remember more people, letting gnomes exchange money at banks for half the fee, letting humans pay less when training at adventurer guilds, etc. Basically stuff that doesn't have a big impact on the game, but are still "fun". I still like this idea a lot, however, it also requires a lot of coding, and we will also end up with the same question as the one we are discussing in (1) above. If these abilities are really good, and we don't get the balance perfect, we end up with the same problem as we have today - some races being batter than others. And if we make these abilities insignifficant enough so that's not a problem, then why have them at all? However, I am certainly open for the idea giving all races even stats, and adding a bunch of utility/cosmetic abilities. That's also a pretty "safe" option that really can't go too wrong. But it means someone will need to code all the new stuff, which might not be worth the time and effort because these abilities will have a quite small impact?
4.
"Goblins should be able to keep their superior melee stats because goblins have the most drawbacks in the game in terms of areas/quests they can access, and they also lack guild options".
Yes, if we even out the stat modifiers there will still be a bunch of pros and cons to all races. But the solution to those imbalances isn't to let some races be superior to all other races. Regarding goblins today, I don't think the goblin drawbacks are nearly as big as the goblin benefits. But goblins are hardly the only race with drawbacks. Dwarves and gnomes have no really good options for a racial guild (power-wise that is). I mean, gnomes doesn't even have any option - just one guild, while goblins have access to one of the best racial guilds (Red Fang). Hobbits and kenders tend to be goodies (kenders HAVE to be good), and most dwarves are too because their guild options are mostly goodie guilds. And we all know being in a goodie guild is a pretty big drawback on its own due to lack of grinding areas compared to evils and neutrals - which is what most goblins are. Elves and kenders, like goblins, also have areas that they can't enter, or at least are harder to enter, and elves have quests they can't access either. (I think??) Just to name a few drawbacks with other races.
So, no, even after the change, goblins will still be a good choice with lots of good options guildwise, and that most goblin RP and guild options are neutral/evil is still a quite nice benefit too. Will it still technically be better to be human because of access to more guilds and all quests/areas? Well, yes. Goblins will probably go from being the clearly best melee race to "middle of the pack" overall, together with elves and dwarves. Humans will likely be seen as the best race, while hobbits and gnomes probably will remain least popular due to fewer guild and/or align options. But the difference between the best race and the worse race will be MUCH smaller than it is today because you ONLY have to deal with the imbalances you find out in the world, not not massive stat differences as well, on top of that. Honestly, I think many players would be okay with the goblin drawbacks just to get a wolf to ride on, something no other race can get. And I think more people will choose to be a gnome, despite the lack of guild options, because it's simply fun to talk gnomish and be an inventor, which you can only be if you're a gnome. I think even with the imbalances that remain, all races will appeal to a lot more people when we remove the massive stat modifier imbalances. It won't make all races 100% equal, but it's way better than today.
5.
Shouldn't all races be able to access all areas, quests, and have just as many good choices in terms of guilds?
Regarding quests, yes, definitely. I don't think there is a wizard who doesn't want that, and unless I am mistaken all "new" quests that have been added to the game for the last 20(?) years have not been race restricted. We still have some old ones that are race restricted, and the only reason they remain that way is because nobody has volunteered to fix them. When it comes to areas, yes, I think the aboslute majority of "significant" areas in the game should be possible to enter for everyone. It might be really hard (like the Minas Morgul stairs), or fairly easy (like Isengaard), but it should be possible. Again, I wan't that too, but we need someone to volunteer to do it. When it comes to guilds, I of course don't think all races should be able to join all guilds, that would not make any sense. However, perhaps we should make a count, and see which races are actually allowed in which guilds, and see if there is room for improvement. (Mortals are welcome to help here). Perhaps humans should _not_ be allowed into so many guilds, and perhaps some guilds could be a bit more open to more races. Definitely something to look into, because I do think the available guild options should be fairly even, or as even as we can get it without it becoming too odd thematically. When it comes to racial guilds it's unfortunately a matter of coding a bunch of new guilds, and with our limited workfoce that is unlikely to happen anytime soon, no matter how much we want to. But at least one more gnome and/or dwarf racial would be awesome, to begin with. Any wizard volunteers?
6.
"'Nerfing' goblins so they become just as good as humans (and all other races) is a boost to vampires".
This one is hard for me to understand. Or, I understand it, but doesn't make sense to me. Okay, so let's assume vampires are horribly imbalanced. So, if I understand things right the solution to this should be to allow goblins (why goblins and not another race?) to also be really imbalanced. We do this in order to keep the vampire population under control, but if we make goblins weaker, vampires will start slaughtering people left and right, because it's the equally imbalanced goblins that currently keep that from happening. Okay, I guess it is one way of doing it, but if _any_ guild turns out to be too powerful, be that vampires or someone else, the solution should of course be to fix that guild, not let another race be better than everyone else just to counter the first imbalance. And by the way, goblins were imbalanced long before the current vampires appeared, so if vampires are too powerful too, aren't vampires actually the "counter" that keeps goblins under control?
7.
"Vampires received extra power in guild balance because they are race restricted to humans, so, when everyone gets human-like stats, vampires will become comparably better than everyone else".
I have no idea where this idea came from, but it's definitely not how it works. Or not how it should work at least. Like Ckrik said above, race should not be factored in when balancing a guild, unless the race is part of the guild (ogres). Also humans definitely aren't the weakest race, so, if we actually did factor in race in guild balance, the Secret Society of Kenders is the guild we should worry about after this rebalance, not the Vampires. Kenders have pretty lousy stat modifiers for a melee guild AND they are goodie align restricted (which is a big drawback too), so, if their guild is boosted because of the drawbacks of the kender race/subrace, they will be serious killing machines after the change. But that won't be the case, because race isn't part of guild balance. However, I do think it's good that this was brought up, because it is something to keep an eye out for. We have a lot of guilds, and not all have been balanced recently. Obviously it's possible someone, at some time, has factored in racial pros and cons into their guild. It _should_ not be the case, but, it's Genesis, and Genesis is full of surprises, even for us admins.
