Celtic Heroes

I think Celtic Heroes will run into the same problem as the old Dungeons and Dragons when class was too specific. If I remember correctly around the 3rd edition they changed it to allow cross classing.

In the RPG's now like Skyrim, you can mix your class and be warrior/mage, warrior/rogue, etc depending on where you want to allocate your stats.

Celtic Heroes doesn't give you that option and your a pure [insert class here]. If they make all the classes equal, why not just play warriors then? That is a big dilemma for this RPG.

Damn if you do damned if you don't.

I don't get it so what is your advice?

OK I don't like looking at bad data so here are the actual numbers. Or you can see what percentage of level 70-80s are mages vs rogues Here is how it looks as a chart. This is different. It shows for example .37% of all Mages are over 130 and 5.18% are between 30 and 40 etc. Now is where it gets difficult. If you take the last chart and subtract each class by the average on the right, you can see how the class compares to the total population. So if a class was perfectly represented across all levels it would match the zero line. As you can obviously see there are fewer druids under level 10 than any other class. Also there are more mages under level 20 than any other class. So this is a deviation from the norm graph.

OK Guys now you can argue about who what the numbers say.

LoL I have no advice per se.

Wish I did.

Our Mages are buggered. We've given our opinions to One Thumb. Now we wait and see.

Great charting!

Nice to see where everyone stands.

Ouch, are you dising my data? . How was my data incorrect in any way?

Thanks though Papi, that helps a lot I would have done similar things if I had a better way to do it than grinding through the rankings 10 pages at a time.

Is your normalized distribution functions accurate? Looks like you subtracted from average and didn't divide. So the separation is not ideal at the high levels, mabye we need to rework the equation to be in % of % again rather than just %.

Hopefully at least Papi understands what I mean.

edit

Ahh the friday night of a scientist ... Ill use these numbers and try to make a more illustratuve graph.

This is different. It shows for example .37% of all Mages are over 130 and 5.18% are between 30 and 40 etc.

Now is where it gets difficult. If you take the last chart and divide each class by the average on the right, you can see how the class compares to the total population. So if a class was perfectly represented across all levels it would match the zero line. As you can obviously see there are fewer druids under level 10 than any other class. Also there are more mages under level 20 than any other class.

Thanks again for all the hard work Papi.

This is what I did:

If you take the last chart and divide each class by the average on the right, you can see how the class compares to the total population. So if a class was perfectly represented across all levels it would match the zero line.

Looks like my graph looks different than Papi's second one. I think he subtracted % instead of dividing them.

Ok so analysis:

So looking at Papi's first graph, there are too many warriors at all levels compared to other classes. This shows people genuinely like warriors the most. If they just didn't change their class when they started and didn't like it they would stop playing the warrior. But it doesn't look like they do.

There are not enough mages and druids total in the game.

Rogues and Rangers look like they each have a good share of 1/5 of the whole population.

Now looking at my graph, it looks like people don't feel an incentive (good cost to benefit ratio) to level their mages. People have leveled the druids they make heavily. People also have leveled their rogues heavily (or just stopped makeing new ones, which is unlikely). Rangers and warriors are average across the board which means people feel an average interest in leveling them.