In a world where only the fittest survive, where weakness is weeded out and destroyed just by the way life is...
In a world where the very nature of being a PC means you've unlocked a potential so great, you are no longer in the virtual community...
In that world, how is the POOR attribute stat logical? Would a creature who is literally so far weaker, slower, dumber, or less healthy than the norm really be such a common occurrence or even allowed to flourish and come to the ripe age of becoming a PC? Literally everything can kill you when you're wearing newb-boots done wrong, rats, snakes, etc. How would someone with a poor attribute have made it that far in life to even get THAT far to fail?
Could someone who is literally among the very worst in an attribute REALLY have survived a "normal/common/typical" upbringing in Zalanthas?
Many cripples rise to greatness. Equivalent exchange. I know no man who rises to the heights of excellence without some extreme destitution in another part of his life or person, even if it is hidden. Hence: poor stats.
Yep. I've had chars with poor agility to the point I rarely ever swung...Survived the Copper Wars and last quite a while. Used to tell stories about the wars at the Gaj. A breed called Zeff, if I remember right....He had high endurance which compensated massively.
Also had a poor wisdom/strength combo. Branched fine and skilled up easy enough, but notably slower than very good+ wis characters (made up for his poor wisdom with an IG trait that was quite fun to use and annoy people), and I became decent at combat despite not being combat oriented in terms of my class. This character also had high agility/wisdom which compensated massively.
I'd consider unplayable when I get below average across the board. That's just horrid to deal with.
I can't remember the time I rolled a poor stat with a human that was aged mid-20s. Playing an extreme in age is the only way I've gotten a poor stat. And if your young chances are you get better. If your old chances are you didn't have that poor stat for most of your life anyway.
It's a bit of a noob trab to consider take the stat rating words seriously in the context of comparing yourself to other PCs, but let's not forget that most commoners are just that, commoners, they're not out there joining the Byn and getting involved in plots.
In that sense the heavily "optimistic" stat wordings are good in that they reinforce the idea that "hey, remember, the word is full of virtual folks that aren't close to as strong as your Sarge".
Rolling a poor is really rare. It only has a serious chance of happening if you're stacking some kind of penalty, like a really young crafter who prioritizes strength last. Honestly, I think the only times I've ever seen poor was in wisdom on warriors who got a wisdom penalty. I'm pretty sure that rolling a natural poor without penalties is as likely as rolling a natural AI.
Quote from: Greve on June 22, 2019, 05:46:32 PM
Rolling a poor is really rare. It only has a serious chance of happening if you're stacking some kind of penalty, like a really young crafter who prioritizes strength last. Honestly, I think the only times I've ever seen poor was in wisdom on warriors who got a wisdom penalty. I'm pretty sure that rolling a natural poor without penalties is as likely as rolling a natural AI.
Nah, man. If you prioritize wisdom last on the regular, you'll roll poor wisdom quite frequently.
I've only rolled 2 AIs in the history of all my (70ish?) PCs. Endurance on a dwarf ranger and agility on a c-elf pickpocket.
Quote from: Synthesis on June 23, 2019, 04:30:30 AM
Quote from: Greve on June 22, 2019, 05:46:32 PM
Rolling a poor is really rare. It only has a serious chance of happening if you're stacking some kind of penalty, like a really young crafter who prioritizes strength last. Honestly, I think the only times I've ever seen poor was in wisdom on warriors who got a wisdom penalty. I'm pretty sure that rolling a natural poor without penalties is as likely as rolling a natural AI.
Nah, man. If you prioritize wisdom last on the regular, you'll roll poor wisdom quite frequently.
I've only rolled 2 AIs in the history of all my (70ish?) PCs. Endurance on a dwarf ranger and agility on a c-elf pickpocket.
Prioritise agility and make a kid. Boom, lucky to not get an AI.
I hate stats in this game. They're constantly complained about. A good 80% of the time I'm disappointed in the stats I get. Age is too much of a factor. The range is too broad and their effect too impactful. I think the Strength stat is especially poorly designed in these ways.
I wish there were a way you could just be the average in all stats(somewhere around "Good"?). I'd pick that every time over the chance to get better stats.
Point Buy Option 2020
> I wish there were a way you could just be the average in all stats(somewhere around "Good"?). I'd pick that every time over the chance to get better stats.
I have definitely asked about this in discord, it is something I'd also love to have. Also agreed age is too much of a factor.
> Point Buy Option 2020
Not sure I am in favor of this, in other muds I've seen it produce homogeneity in concepts.
Triste, have you tried not prioritizing any stats when creating a new character?
I have. Its not reliable for that.
The few PC's I had with shitty stats had the best experiences and lived longer than expected. It requires a smart way of playing, but it's definitely not the end of the character.
Quote from: valeria on June 23, 2019, 11:25:32 AM
Point Buy Option 2020
No. Arm's ability scores are too unbalanced to allow point buy.
Quote from: FamousAmos on June 23, 2019, 10:35:23 PM
The few PC's I had with shitty stats had the best experiences and lived longer than expected. It requires a smart way of playing, but it's definitely not the end of the character.
"My anecdotal experience with the game is that you have to get on my level, scrubs."
Holy shit.
[Edit: You know what Riev. You do you. Be a toxic old vet as much as you like. I'm not going to join in with you]
I wasn't speaking of the context of the character and how it develops. Characters by being PCs are outside the norm, and are the exceptions to the rule. I'm not talking about the player's stats in this meaning.
What I am referencing is the unexceptional person in Zalanthas who may or may not become "special" and become a character. How do they survive this harsh, brutal, terrible environment with such a crippling drawback in their existence when everything around them literally consumes the weak to survive? If we line all all the pcs, npcs, vnpcs and equate them to four statistics where a larger number of them than the playerbase represents have something that is POOR, how does that individual get to the point in their life where they suddenly are in the matrix and become exceptional?
I mean, random thought, right?
Its a mindset. No PC becomes "special" in the first place. The most special a PC can get is typically a sponsored role, or one overseen by staff and given a lot of restrictions.
Its more... how did 'dumb' people survive in the days of Rome? They became builders, or block movers, or they rowed boats. If they were fast, maybe they delivered messages. Maybe they had poor endurance and could hardly leave the house, but became amazing painters.
Its kind of a misnomer that anyone who can't fight back, is going to be murdered in Zalanthas. Most people, given the choice, won't kill another living being unless they're a psychopath or something is pushing that need. Most vNPCs aren't out murdering all the time.
For real though idk why we dont have an exponential distribution pdf (or anything monotonic and decreasing) from characters being "mehhhhh" to "damn okay that's exceptional".
Instead of unifom going from "you're literally a joke" to "damn okay that's exceptional".
Sure the hardcore folks would suicide all the same because they're aiming for the top 1%, but for characters just shooting for "respectable PC without having to put in XTRA XTRA effort" this seems to smoothe things out.
I get that prioritisation seems to do this for your most preferred stat already and that's probably the best that will be implemented but it seems much better to just redo the distribution throughout.
The likelihood of having badasses can be kept the same but the likelihood of joke characters can be transferred to mediocrity.
(https://i.imgflip.com/34bck9.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/34bck9) - Mr. Glass (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
Nobody is arguing that poor stats are unplayable. They're saying it isn't fun, or they are saying it's not realistic, or they're saying there's not enough control, or they're saying the control you do have involves too much give and take.
"But I had fun playing a realistic character with poor stats!" Yeah and a lot of people don't. Hence these threads popping up yearly for the past decade or two. If anything I'd say your characters were fun in spite of their stats, not because of them.
If this was a game where your poor stats continually leads to interesting scenarios and brought out unique dynamics, then there might be an argument there, but Armageddon isn't that sort of game. It doesn't have the same sort of character generation as those games. And it doesn't have enough opportunities to give fun experiences with poor stats. The experiences are overwhelmingly negative. Not in the "I hate if my character has flaws way." but in the "God damn this is tedious and annoying every time I log in so why log in." way.
Poor stats are a result of a trade off you have made. You may have made this trade off-knowingly, but you have made it.
Quote from: Brokkr on June 26, 2019, 11:53:04 AM
Poor stats are a result of a trade off you have made. You may have made this trade off-knowingly, but you have made it.
Is there a chance we're going to see disclosure on how these trade-offs happen? What guild/subguild combinations yield what bonuses and penalties?
Quote from: Miradus on June 26, 2019, 07:16:26 PM
Quote from: Brokkr on June 26, 2019, 11:53:04 AM
Poor stats are a result of a trade off you have made. You may have made this trade off-knowingly, but you have made it.
Is there a chance we're going to see disclosure on how these trade-offs happen? What guild/subguild combinations yield what bonuses and penalties?
Agreed, you already tell us pretty much everything else about guild/subguilds in regards to skills, why not bonuses and negatives?
Save for extreme circumstances (80+ year old elderly people), I am adamantly against characters that somehow roll like 80-90 hp, regardless of age/race. To me that is ludicrously low and calls into question the playability of the game itself. There should just be a hard cap minimum amount that hp rolls at for all characters for playability reasons.
I would say 100 is a good place to start?
Prioritize endurance?
Not everyone is meant to be a combat character that can take lots of hits.
Worry less about Class and nothing about subclass and worry about age.
I have rarely had over 100 hp on any character I've ever played. I think my highest was 107.
Consider that your 80 HP character isn't a fighter, or at the very least except in desperate or highly winnable situations.
Savor every victory all the more knowing you hardly had a chance to survive. Die knowing it was inevitable.
Do more than fight.
A weakness is just a new challenge.
80 HP fighter? Not everyone is Conan.
Quote from: BOXCARS on June 27, 2019, 04:15:51 AM
Consider that your 80 HP character isn't a fighter, or at the very least except in desperate or highly winnable situations.
Savor every victory all the more knowing you hardly had a chance to survive. Die knowing it was inevitable.
Do more than fight.
A weakness is just a new challenge.
80 HP fighter? Not everyone is Conan.
I had a minimum age human ranger/slipknife? cutpurse, maybe? that did just fine in PvE with straight GARBAGE ASS stats. I mean, it was like below ave str, ave agility, poor wis, poor endurance, with 82 hp? The downside to 80 hp is PvP, really. And like...you know...oh well. You win some, lose some.
The only time I've ever rolled stats that bad was on minimum-age PCs.
The only time it was utterly unplayable was on a min-age d-elf ranger with poor strength. Had to take a dive on that one, lads.
Alternate Solution: Just eliminate the wording "below average." Turn it to "good" and "absolutely incredible" to godlike. Below average sounds pretty negative and makes people feel bad about their character.
But in all seriousness I agree its kind've janked. In a lot of RPGs nobody would force you to play something seen as under skilled. That wouldn't be fun.
Don't roll anything below 25 and I expect you'll do just fine with stats, with your absolute worst stat potentially being wisdom if you prioritize it last.
Quote from: kahuna on June 26, 2019, 09:08:35 PM
Save for extreme circumstances (80+ year old elderly people), I am adamantly against characters that somehow roll like 80-90 hp, regardless of age/race. To me that is ludicrously low and calls into question the playability of the game itself. There should just be a hard cap minimum amount that hp rolls at for all characters for playability reasons.
I would say 100 is a good place to start?
If you're rolling that low, then you've chosen options that would result in something that low. Random rolls on optimized class/race/age/stat priority won't result in an 80hp. It just won't.
If your priority is to get 100+ hp, then choose class/race/age/stat prioritization that would naturally result in higher HPs. And then, accept that even a 110hp roll will get you killed if you're fairly unskilled due to not enough practice yet, and a mugger with an attitude, training, and a decent sword slashes your head at 60HPs per hit.
You can survive on 80hps if you DON'T piss people off. And you can die easily at 110 hps if you DO piss people off.
I'd be lying if terrible stats don't put a damper on a character and my playtimes, especially when I've waited 70+ days to play the character and end up with multiple below average stats.
It doesn't completely drive me away, but usually it's the difference between playing 2-3 hours daily to 5-6 hours weekly.