Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
I like the system as it is. I like that not all people are "born" equal, and that some are more naturally gifted than others. This mirrors real life, and gives people the opportunity to play a broad spectrum of characters from amazing to amazingly inept. With a point buy system, we'd end up with "best of" builds wherein people have rather cookie cutter stats depending on what classes they're playing.

I don't think the number of "exceptionals" needs to be reduced. I personally have not had a character with lots of exceptional stats, ever. That said, people might see others say that they have on the forums and have attribute envy, thinking if they don't get really high stats, they aren't as good. I think it's important for people to remember that for every person that gets multiple high stats on a character like that, there were likely 100 other characters that had much closer to average stats.

Not everyone gets to play a super-statted character. Just like not everyone gets to play an elementalist, or a sorcerer, or a psionicist. Asymetrical characters have been a part of the Armageddon culture for as long as it has been an RPI. It is part of Arm's identity.

See but the thing is is that people do this anyway. Certain classes get boosts and negatives (or no negatives) than others, so why are base stats random in this case? Those with flaws will have them based off their background, perfect specimens aren't even particularly favored if there isn't a character behind them. Randomness does not reduce cookie cutter style play, all it does is favor certain playstyles -- particularly ones that are safer than others. A dwarf with that low of strength could have the focus of becoming stronger, and since you've made the character BEFORE STATS HAVE BEEN ISSUED, it's quite clear that stats aren't intended to make up your character's distinct genetics. At most you could make your physical description vague and add to that with tdesc but I rarely ever see that amongst PCs save hair.
2
I might be ok with the option to point buy stats if the choice to go random was clearly superior. For instance, with point buy, if you could only have enough points to guarantee above average stats across the board. And stats higher than "above average" would have a really steep increase in price, so if someone took a single stat much higher than that, they'd really pay for it in their other stats.

This would allow someone to choose point buy for a character concept that absolutely had to have above average or so in everything, but would still make the random choice the go to for a lot of people because it COULD be way better, and is rarely worse than above average across the board.

Agreed!
3
Code Discussion / Re: Should Arm's stat rolls go from random to point buy?
« Last post by Heade on Today at 09:50:55 PM »
I might be ok with the option to point buy stats if the choice to go random was clearly superior. For instance, with point buy, if you could only have enough points to guarantee above average stats across the board. And stats higher than "above average" would have a really steep increase in price, so if someone took a single stat much higher than that, they'd really pay for it in their other stats.

This would allow someone to choose point buy for a character concept that absolutely had to have above average or so in everything, but would still make the random choice the go to for a lot of people because it COULD be way better, and is rarely worse than above average across the board.

4
I like random stats myself.  Most of the group I run for is point buy, and everything needs to be fair. But there can be a lot of fun in roleplaying the unfair.  Making that thief with poor agility, a dwarven warrior with very poor strength (have done before, it was amusing to have elves that could carry more then me. And I had fun with the character)  You can make such characters with point buy, but people rarely do. 

There was also a time when you couldn't prioritize your stats, or undo a reroll (and you had to wish up for a reroll in the first place) So they have taken steps to give you slightly less random.
5
Player Announcements / Re: Fun and Games in Luirs!
« Last post by Barsook on Today at 07:41:11 PM »
Once again:

Thank you for coming and a BIG, BIG thank you for those who helped to organize it and run it!

You guys are just awesome! I <3 you all!
6
General Discussion / Re: Drop It Like It's Hot (your input requested)
« Last post by Bushranger on Today at 06:08:56 PM »
Akariel suggests that we could change the command functionality for put. That would look like this: >put bottle down
Akariel puts a bottle of fancy wine down.
Akariel would see: >put bottle down
You put a bottle of fancy wine down.
This has the benefit of congruency between the command and output, so I think it's functionally more elegant than changing the echo for the drop command. (I think his idea is better but I'm putting all ideas out so we can have the best possible idea pile)

In all instances, you'd still get to apply command emotes ()[] to alter the full look of it.
I'll give it some more thought later. But an immediate point I want to raise is "put bottle down" should be the exact same syntax as "empty bag ground". So it would be "put bottle ground".

As for how we could emote that emote put bottle ground (letting it smash) [causing the liquid inside to spill everywhere] would echo as:
Letting it smash, the man puts a bottle on the ground causing the liquid to spill everywhere."

I like Akariel's idea, especially with John's addendum of using ground instead of down to maintain the same style and syntax as the empty command, so I will add my support for that. I also think that the drop command should be left in so that those of us with many years of history and long term habits will not find ourselves in a situation where he need to suddenly drop the chest we just picked up and can't remember the new >put chest ground command because three gith riding mekillots charged us and we're panicked!
7
Code Discussion / Re: Should Arm's stat rolls go from random to point buy?
« Last post by Heade on Today at 05:15:55 PM »
I like the system as it is. I like that not all people are "born" equal, and that some are more naturally gifted than others. This mirrors real life, and gives people the opportunity to play a broad spectrum of characters from amazing to amazingly inept. With a point buy system, we'd end up with "best of" builds wherein people have rather cookie cutter stats depending on what classes they're playing.

I don't think the number of "exceptionals" needs to be reduced. I personally have not had a character with lots of exceptional stats, ever. That said, people might see others say that they have on the forums and have attribute envy, thinking if they don't get really high stats, they aren't as good. I think it's important for people to remember that for every person that gets multiple high stats on a character like that, there were likely 100 other characters that had much closer to average stats.

Not everyone gets to play a super-statted character. Just like not everyone gets to play an elementalist, or a sorcerer, or a psionicist. Asymetrical characters have been a part of the Armageddon culture for as long as it has been an RPI. It is part of Arm's identity.
8
Maybe a material dependent drop echo for items would be more appropriate? I feel like it'd be a great idea either way.

"Fragile" materials that often compose bottles, jewelry, etc like gem, ceramic, glass could be "set down".
Cloth items could be "lain down" onto the ground. Cloth, sandcloth, silk, etc.
9
Drop is a pretty universal command that shouldn't be changed, in my opinion. It's the same here as it is on some other MU*. It's hard wired into muscle memory as the command to use when putting something down.

Because of that ubiquitousness, drop isn't immersion breaking to me. Let go has the most variety and lack of implication of the suggested changes imo, though.
10
Sorry about my rant! Read over Quell's, Lizzie's, and Mansa's posts -- totally agree with them in one aspect or another. I really just do not feel the current way is more favored than possibly a new one that incorporates far less chance.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10