A discussion of stats.

[Qzzrbl]

I think what he meant is that you often end up with characters like, "exceptional strength, exceptional endurance, below average wisdom, poor agility", as opposed to, "good strength, good endurance, good wisdom and average agility"

Right, that, along with "Average" not truly being the real, honest to Tek average.

[Marauder Moe]

Perhaps my idea has already been implemented, then.  Heh.

So perhaps you're saying they ought to undo it?  Make average truly average again?

[Qzzrbl]

Perhaps my idea has already been implemented, then.  Heh.

So perhaps you're saying they ought to undo it?  Make average truly average again?

Along making rolls above or below average a little rarer.

::Edit:: Morever, raise "Average" to "Good" status, lower the increments between stat changes, and make higher or lower rolls rarer.

[Delstro]

I am not in favor of doing what you suggest Qzzrbl. I don't play this game to be average. If I always saw middle of the spectrum stats, I'd dislike that greatly. Give me flaws and strengths. Don't make my characters average.


Instead I propose that everyone gets a certain amount of stat points that are invisible. Based on age, race, guild, and subguild, you would get more or less points.


Poor, Below-Average, Average, Above Average, Good, Very Good, Extremely Good, Exceptional, Absolutely Incredible

To get Below-average, you need to use 2 points. To get AI, you need to use 15 points.

Now, the mud will take those points and randomly create your most prefered stat, then your second most prefered stats , then your third, then what is left gets placed on your least favored stats. Your prefered stat has a range of good+

[Qzzrbl]

I am not in favor of doing what you suggest Qzzrbl. I don't play this game to be average. If I always saw middle of the spectrum stats, I'd dislike that greatly. Give me flaws and strengths. Don't make my characters average.


Instead I propose that everyone gets a certain amount of stat points that are invisible. Based on age, race, guild, and subguild, you would get more or less points.


Poor, Below-Average, Average, Above Average, Good, Very Good, Extremely Good, Exceptional, Absolutely Incredible

To get Below-average, you need to use 2 points. To get AI, you need to use 15 points.

Now, the mud will take those points and randomly create your most prefered stat, then your second most prefered stats , then your third, then what is left gets placed on your least favored stats. Your prefered stat has a range of good+

Right, but if everyone here had great stats, then who would your character be strong in comparison to?

What I'm proposing is taking the current "Good" stat, and making that the new "average" and then working off of that.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say stats are on a 1-18 scale.



Poor  Below Average  Average  Above Average  Good  Very Good  Extremely Good  Exceptional  AI
  -2                 4                         6                   8                          10          12                             14                           16            18+
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And that's what it is currently.

This is what I'm proposing

   
Poor  Below Average  Average  Above Average  Good  Very Good  Extremely Good  Exceptional  AI                                                                                       
- 2                 5                        10                   11.5                 13         14.5                   16                           17.5            18+
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We can't all be supermen.

[Qzzrbl]

Maybe even throw in something like "Awful" to help balance out the below averages a little more.

[AmandaGreathouse]

Maybe even throw in something like "Awful" to help balance out the below averages a little more.

I would hate to see it if anyone gets an awful in both strength and agility as I had but with poor. I could only hold 3 items in my inverntory. You could what, only hold one thing? Because that suck ass. Hard. Very hard.

[Qzzrbl]

Maybe even throw in something like "Awful" to help balance out the below averages a little more.

I would hate to see it if anyone gets an awful in both strength and agility as I had but with poor. I could only hold 3 items in my inverntory. You could what, only hold one thing? Because that suck ass. Hard. Very hard.

It wouldn't be terribly much different from getting "Poor" in both strength and agility, as "Awful" would take the 2- spot that "Poor" once took. Just to add a little more variety to our under average stats.

So it's not such a crippling drop for underaverage stats, seeing as there's more stats over average than under.

[AmandaGreathouse]

Ok, I thought you meant adding a whole new level of suck. Makes more sense now that you explained.

[Salt Merchant]

I've only had one character with two stats above very good throughout my entire history here.

The majority of my characters have had stats ranging between average and good.

[Qzzrbl]

I've only had one character with two stats above very good throughout my entire history here.

The majority of my characters have had stats ranging between average and good.

I almost always wind up with an "Exceptional" somewhere in there.

[LittleLostThief]

Even though this was within the last year, I'd like to share with some of you the OOC concept behind one of my recent characters.

The "poor strength" warrior.  In fact, when I made him, my strength was a bit higher than that -- so I rerolled to get a lower yield.  I got poor on my second roll, which was exactly what I was looking for.

I wanted this character to eventually prove that statistics didn't matter over skills, and of course I had plenty of IC goals as well.

I could barely wear three pieces of the crappiest armor imagineable, and it didn't really matter.  Over a relatively short period of time, I went from easy to knock out of the ring to incredibly hard to knock out of the ring.

I was only able to take him to about four and a half days of playing time, because I was killed out of what I can only imagine was jealousy because my "skill" more than made up for my horrible strength.  At such a small, insignificant amount of playing time (because four days is NOTHING) I was still having trouble doing damage with sparring weapons, but unlike those of you who start with godlike strength... it was easier for me to see each bump up to my damage.  It was also immensely satisfying.

I won't deny that out of the box stats seem to make up a majority of the difference for a lot of you, but this is only because of the immediate gratification provided by them.  There is a huge different in what you can do "out of the box" between poor and absolutely incredible for sure, and I will not deny this.  Skill still matters immensely.  Others have pretty much hit the nail on the head when they mention that what is a "whole lot of time to you" is insignificant in reality.  For the OP, you mentioned that someone who sticks around for "five IC years" should be kicking ass.  This leads me to assume that you put this number up because you felt it was a huge, relatively impossible number to achieve, and it is anything but.  Five IC years is right around six months I think... probably a drop in the bucket, unless you manage to play about a third of your time EVERY SINGLE DAY (eight hours, 60 days total), but I applaud the person with that much free time and dedication.  A more realistic idea for that is 2 hours a day (still a significant average) giving you 15 days of playing time... and you'll still be sucking then.

I'll say that another problem for many of you is that when you step into the sparring ring, you want to WIN.  It's not about development, it's not about moving yourself in a productive direction that is congruous with your IC character.  It's about the win and asserting your dominance against your fellow player.  It's much harder to learn from your successes than it is from your failures, and the AI out of the box n00b that always wins learns relatively little.  AI strength characters actually wind up getting a little gimped, because they are relatively unable to progress in a more well rounded sense.  I've seen it happen.

In the end, even though my little poor strength prototype didn't live to 100 days (my other OOC goal), I still feel relatively good about the results I got from my test.  Indeed, almost each of you naysayers lack staying power and patience.  Many of you also have a very incorrect idea about what a "long lived" character is.  I think it's pretty safe to regard day 0 - 20 as you STILL being incredibly green and still relatively mundane in your skill level.  My final verdict?

Skills > Stats.

As a final note... especially for those of you without as much time to spend on this game... don't let my diatribe lead you to believe that such a relatively unskilled character is worthless.  This game has a huge social aspect, and I think much of the gist behind it is that you're supposed to make friends, network together, and achieve greatness shoulder to shoulder.  Three fifteen day warriors that fight well together are still a force to be reckoned with, even if each individual cannot manage to shine on their own.

Oh, and another one!  Keep in mind that there has NEVER been a "maxed" warrior either.  Even the most long-lived, badass, kill you in two hits warriors that have been in the upper echelons of PC-dom were not the "best possible evah".  There was still plenty of room for them to improve.

[Yam]

I've played a poor strength warrior for a lot longer than four days.

Skill doesn't make up for being unable to hit through gith skin after fifteen days.

I don't think four days of playtime in a sparring ring is enough to say that skills > stats.

This isn't at all about being the best in the sparring ring or anything silly like that. It's about playability.

[LittleLostThief]

As was my exact argument before, there's not a big difference between four days or fifteen days.

Fifteen days you are still skilled like a n00b.

[Yam]

As was my exact argument before, there's not a big difference between four days or fifteen days.

Fifteen days you are still skilled like a n00b.

Fifteen days played. You aren't. I don't want to get into skill mechanics or anything, but a lot of skills can be near the caps.

[LittleLostThief]

Except for the most important ones, which do not follow conventional skill gain methods, still leaving you equaling a n00b.

Edited slightly.

[LittleLostThief]

I'm not very good at this board. 

[Yam]

Except for the most important ones, which do not follow conventional skill gain methods, still leaving you equaling a n00b.

Edited slightly.

360 hours of play is more than enough time for the skills in question to reach substantial levels.

[LittleLostThief]

This is simply incorrect.  It's not remotely enough time, even if you spent every single moment of it working on your skills.

[Qzzrbl]

Except for the most important ones, which do not follow conventional skill gain methods, still leaving you equaling a n00b.

Edited slightly.

360 hours of play is more than enough time for the skills in question to reach substantial levels.

Only if you train to the point of spamming skills, so far as I've noticed.

I've had a character who was only just beginning to get decent with some skills at 10 days played. And he trained as often as he could realistically, and still wound up getting whomped by newbies with great stats. And his stats were pretty decent too.

-shrug-

[Yam]

I don't think that these arguments from anecdotal experiences are getting us anywhere.

[BuNutzCola]

I don't think that these arguments from anecdotal experiences are getting us anywhere.

I once had a merchant who killed a carru with a sword.
He had below average strength and good agility.

Clearly this is irrefutable empirical evidence that this will always be the case!

[jhunter]

I'll say that another problem for many of you is that when you step into the sparring ring, you want to WIN.  It's not about development, it's not about moving yourself in a productive direction that is congruous with your IC character.  It's about the win and asserting your dominance against your fellow player.

Let me get this straight...you're saying that it's unrealistic for a living entity (your character) to want to "win" when in a physical contest against another? That it's a "problem" with the players? I'm sorry but that's just plain ridiculous.

What person in real life enters into any sort of physical contest with no intention to win?

Alright guys! Are you ready?!!! I said are you ready?!!! Let's go out there and LOSE!!!! YAAAYYY!!!

[Lizzie]

jhunter,

It is VERY realistic for someone to want to win, whenever they are competing against someone else. But sparring isn't competing. It's practice. It's training. It's attempting to improve your own personal best, not to prove yourself better than your opponent. By addressing the poster who is discussing sparring, in a way that indicates you feel that it should feel natural for sparring people to want to win during sparring, suggests that you are either missing the point, or that your perspective is somehow skewed.

[jhunter]

Plenty of people in practice against others in real life still want to win. There's nothing wrong with this. Especially moreso on Zalanthas I believe it would be the case. That is my point. Are you going to go full out and kill them? Likely not. Would you still prefer to dominate them knowing that you are not going full out. I bellieve that a larger percentage would.
It's like sports, you may be practicing but you're practicing in a more full out drill. You still try to win without killing your partners. Otherwise, noone learns as much and will not be as good as those that practice more full out.