Stone Giants: Why aren't there any?

[Stiehl26]

I have noticed that, while stone giants were once played, they currently seem to be no longer viable, or at least that must be the perception of the general public. I checked the amount of current stone giants and there are 5, lower than any other race. Is this an example of a race that, similar to illithids and gnomes are not considered worth playing for the most part? I understand some people will say that "in the right hands" the stone giant (gnome,illithid) are some kind of PK juggernauts, but I just don't think that is a legitimate reason for keeping a race around (1 person's freakish pk ability should not an entire race be based). Is there any chance that there can be an open discussion about what the downfalls of the stone giants are, and how they could be improved?

[_Clifton_]

effigy.

edit: and neutral, chaotic.

[RebornShadows]

Stone giants are weak against mental attacks and most people exploit this vuln. lowest int and wis of the three giants so its harder to training skills up at least from one point of view. your right in the right hands it can be a beast but have you ever thought that the ones that once played stone giants got bored of the race and went to a different one? if you want to see more stone giants then make one and get crackin if you want them dead then make a giant killer kill every stone giant you see and make people stop wanting to play them. Giants are the best tanks in the game but against smart players they are easy to beat.

[Stiehl26]

To be honest I don't have any interest in playing them, I was hoping this discussion would lead to either making changes to make the stone giants worth playing or show that there is room for other (new) races that people would actually play.

[Olyn]

Stone giant alignment restrictions prohibit them from joining any cabals or more vets would probably use them. The vuln can be partially covered up with berserk and/or rage so it's not as bad as you may think, you just have to account for your movement if you always fight berseked.

[Stiehl26]

Has their been discussion of allowing them a slightly broader alignment range? If there was a discussion what were the cons of letting that happen? Were those cons based on a set of rules or version of the mud that no longer exists?

[Olyn]

The implementers chose to restrict them to chaotic after years of being able to choose any ethos. There's plenty of play value in a stone giant, just not in a cabal.

[Erlwith]

fire giants have lower wis/int than stone giants. gnomes don't suck, you do.

i think the reason for the decline in stone giants is cabals. back during warlords there were plenty of stone giants. there were still a couple once it closed lingering in justice, but then they got nerfed to chaotic only and pretty much died out. its been said before, good players winning (usually in cabals) stimulates other people to mimic them. but with stone giants sort of falling off the map there are not many willing to champion their cause with purples.

[Slade]

Gnomes are one of the best races in the game...

Stones are quite good warriors, and challenging but potentially very dangerous berserkers. They just can't join anything most people want to play.

[Davairus]

If you actually look at the in-game areas, the stone giants are found pretty sporadically throughout the game, but most of them are present in the Ford wilderness..and they're quite content to have it that way. They have a clan priest and that's about it. So, the way this properly translates into player-controlled races is quite simple really - nomadic aloof race that wanders into town probably never having seen one, not likely to care for its laws or inhabitants after after being chased out with torches and pitchforks for being a big ugly monstrosity. They are too dangerous to be slaves because they're like the downes syndrome kid that punches babies and doesnt get it. I'm not saying that's the only way to play it, just that its the tangent they follow naturally into AR. Anyway, seems like its already been beaten to death that people tend to roll characters that can join cabals - which is pointless as far as I am concerned, since so few of them actually end up doing it. Stone giants are rare enough to enjoy a unique feeling from playing one, and a very easy race for mob-bashing with, though obviously not suitable for PVP if the gathering-gear advantage transposed by tough skin is not acted upon (the warrior in particular will make an ideal Winter-run tank since most of those mobs do physical damage - once you have it geared, it then feels like a vuln to anybody on the recieving end). I don't think they need a buff. Yes, there used to be a lot more stone giants, back when they were capable of chain bashing someone , locking them in a fight from 100% to dead in one go easily. And yes, players loved to stack that with forms for pwnage . But the stone giant "death" began a lot sooner than Warlord closure. They actually got bad defenses and a vuln, with slow learning, and most players see that and go roll an elf or something (like having 800 max hp at 50 with mediocre fighting stats is different? *shrug*)

[Davor]

[_Clifton_]

[Thorgoth]

the effigy is really null and void, the strength produces a vicious sideswipe and size gaurantees a lag from it. secondly, stone giants are neutral, therefor making it easier to rank due to the wide variety, aside from choosing elf/drow and being stuck to rank with those like you. the only wall that i slam into when thinking of stone berserker is the cabal issue, but they are said to be creatures of solitude, but aren't half the creatures who are able to join cabals suppose to be too? such as sliths, fires, storms, dwarves/duergars, and minotaurs..but you change one, you gotta change them all, and who wants that?

[Adebaldi]

Neutral alignment also means that you can't just go and kill anybody. So many people find it easier to make an evil rather than try to rp a stone giant pk'ing.

[Thorgoth]

well being neutral chaotic giant means you can do what you want when you want so you don't have to explain your actions, unlike halflings, gnomes and half-elves who have to answer for their aggression because it's a racial clash. so really the only downside to stone giants is not having the perks of a cabal, but there is always heralds!

[Erlwith]

pip/dav bring up good points for stone giants. while the neutral exp grind is gay, being able to rank with anyone makes up for it (plus leet tankness). training with storm giants is super super gay so I only guess stone giants are worse, but lots of hp and thick skin make training a bit easier imo. but this is all before you take into account neutral pk superiority; not having to worry about 2/3 of the game attacking you while ranking(and the other 1/3 begging you to be their tank), training, gearing, etc. an easy life will make for good gear and lots of mastered skills which makes pk that much easier.

[Stiehl26]

Should stone giants, because of their neutral only (no good or evil) alignments, lack of cabals, and less classes to play (no shaman or healer) have a slightly lower xp penalty applied to the race as a whole? Stone giants could once play rangers which compared to the fire and storm giants being able to play shaman and healers respectively. With their massive xp penalties (berserker stone giant) and their admitted (by Davarius even) lack of pk viability without being geared out from Winter, I would put forth that they should be dropped down to a 350 xp penalty. I think it would be hard to argue that stone giants, as they stand right now, are as popular, powerful, or useful as a duergar which would share the same xp penalty. Please see this post for what it is, not an effort to make stone giants ultra powerful or whatever, but rather weed out or fix the races that are not being utilized. With all of the talk of balance and such there is no real reason that any race should be so underplayed.

[Erlwith]

stone giants are still ultra pimp. they own npcs and if you have any idea of how to play they can easily own players (that aren't way better than you) plus, they're neutral. you have to be careful saying races/classes are gimped, just because you haven't played one effectively. just because something is difficult to grasp doesn't mean it isn't viable in a pk situation.

people wanted the drow/elf exp penalty to be lowered when they lost silent loot, etc. Just because a race gets nerfed doesn't mean the exp penalty should be lowered. stone giants didn't lose much of any lethality just because they lost cabals, so reducing their exp cost doesn't make any sense. - nor do i think reducing their exp cost will inspire people to play them.

[Mahkan]

yeah.
i dont get why you wanna change stuff so badly.

[Stiehl26]

Well there, Erlwith, that wasn't so hard. And no, I'm not being an ass. I am genuinely glad to see a good response. What I think, though, that you are missing in my post is that stone giants are no longer what they once were. No longer having access to a cabal (stone giant warlords were a force to be reckoned with) and losing a class (lost access to rangers) take them out of comparison with the other giants, who have those xp penalties for a reason. If elves lost the ability to be in Knights, or could no longer sneak or were no longer allowed to be healers or paladins, I would think that the tune would be markedly different, since elves are popular...probably because they have so many options in classes and cabals. In this case stone giants are quite simply obsolete. Am I honestly the only one who thinks that there should be some tweaks to the races because of changing times? Should I just simply stop making suggestions or trying to draw out some progressive thinking about the mud? I genuinely like the mud and I tend to play the same 2 or 3 races, which I am 95% fine with. I just think that there is room for improvement or some subtle modifications to induce more active players. I personally think AR is one of the best muds out there, though the playerbase is borderline horrendous...at least when I play (eastern standard a few hours between 5 and 11 pm).