Stat Ranges - Too Broad?

[RogueGunslinger]

I'm of the believe that there is WAY WAY too drastic a difference between Average and Extremely good, when it comes to Agility, Endurance and Strength. Let alone Poor-Absolutely Incredible. Widom doesn't seem so drastically effected, so I've left it out. The very fact that a half-giant can end up only holding one item, and an elf can end up without being able to wield anything, is fairly telling of how drastic this range can be when taken into the scope of racial stat ranges. We're basically scraping the very bottom of how low we can make stats go. So low that your character might in fact, be useless at things without staff intervention.

Yes, we have priority. Yes, we have Reroll. But that has NOTHING to do with that I'm describing. My problem is not a lack of good stats, or a lack of the stats that I want. My problem is how massively different a human with AI strength is, from a human with even good strength. I've seen humans with AI strength landing more vicious and grievous blows than half-giants. Like... That should never, ever, ever happen. An AI strength human shouldn't even be comparable to a normal Half-Giant.

You could just knock off the very worst, and best stats, and instead of some random number determining how you stack up to others, it would come down more to experience and time played. You don't even have to get rid of them entirely. The differences between stat ranges swing too drastically.


For reference:

poor
below average
average
above average
good
very good
extremely good
excellent
absolutely incredible

Is what we have. I'd much rather see poor and AI completely removed, and rename the stats accordingly (excellent would be AI). Hell I would even be okay with removing below average and excellent. The end result would be less whining about stats, less impact from stats on characters. Less freak god-like characters who were just lucky enough to get a good roll.

[Jihelu]

I like the idea of having a base 'stats can't be this low'. Rather than removing it, though you essentially are removing it.

[Marauder Moe]

I'm moderately confident that more than just strength determines how "hard" a hit is.

[RogueGunslinger]

I'm moderately confident that more than just strength determines how "hard" a hit is.

Sure, that doesn't change the fact that a human is hitting harder than a half-giant.

[Lizzie]

I am blissfully oblivious to any "massive" differences between "good" and "AI." Considering that "good" is a few steps away from AI, however, I'll take the guess that there's supposed to be a "massive" difference.

The only time stats mean anything to me is when they hinder my ability to improve at a reasonable rate compared to my actual attempts to do so. Seeing as how I'm basically the anti-twink, this is a pretty rare occurrence.

[Marauder Moe]

So hitting harder isn't the same as being stronger.

[RogueGunslinger]

I am blissfully oblivious to any "massive" differences... I'll take the guess that there's supposed to be a "massive" difference.

Okay, just because that was they way it was designed, doesn't mean it can't be made better, or that it wasn't poorly designed in the first place. Do you think there SHOULD be a massive difference, is what I'm asking.

Both from a game-play standpoint, and a realism standpoint, I think it should not be as broad as it is.

So hitting harder isn't the same as being stronger.

Are you going to bring this tangent around to the topic at hand?

[CodeMaster]

I don't know how the variances play out, but I think that's really the question.

Suppose character A has 1% better stats than character B, other things being equal.  How often will character A win in the sparring ring?  I'm willing to bet that the numbers are far from 51%/49%.  Especially if any kind of heavy armor is involved.

If that's the case (and I'm just guessing -- I have no way of verifying this) then narrowing the ranges isn't going to have much of a perceived effect on these "massive" differences.

But f trained humans are hitting harder than trained half-giants, I'd agree something is strange there.

[Marauder Moe]

So hitting harder isn't the same as being stronger.

Are you going to bring this tangent around to the topic at hand?

I've seen humans with AI strength landing more vicious and grievous blows than half-giants. Like... That should never, ever, ever happen. An AI strength human shouldn't even be comparable to a normal Half-Giant.

[RogueGunslinger]

So hitting harder isn't the same as being stronger.

Are you going to bring this tangent around to the topic at hand?

I've seen humans with AI strength landing more vicious and grievous blows than half-giants. Like... That should never, ever, ever happen. An AI strength human shouldn't even be comparable to a normal Half-Giant.

Yes, I know you're focusing on that one example.  It's definitely not the only occurrence of broad-ranges coming off as unrealistic. And the other factors beyond strength that effect the damage you do? They are very small, in my experience, when compared to the strength stat.

[Marauder Moe]

We also had a staff test recently that showed a moderately skilled but average-stat warrior consistently wiping the floor with a fresh but AI-stat warrior.

Anyway, I disagree, and voted as such.

[Riev]

In my experiences, stats only matter at the beginning, when skills are low/sub Journeyman, and when skills are at high advanced/master. And yes, all things being equal (equal offense/defense among the attacker and defender, and equal weapon skill) a human shouldn't be hitting harder than a half-giant. However, since the help files suggest agility affects attack speed, its possible a human will hit with these 15-20pt hits more often than a half-giant, who might attack 1/3 the times a human does, or less, and thus run the possibility that they only get an 8pt hit.

I do feel that the ranges for some races are in fact very broad, because I don't think that they are standardized across races (human good to very good isn't the same range as half-giant good to very good), however I don't see it as much of a problem. Narrowing the ranges might only serve to homogenize the stats of players across races, and rolling an EG strength on your warrior wouldn't be nearly as significant.

However, I will say that I DO agree that 9 categorical ranges on stats is too many, and would not mind having 7 (an odd number is totally needed to make a real median). However, I wouldn't want to change the numbers at all, which would mean the range between good and very good just got wider. So. I guess I'm almost literally on the fence.

[RogueGunslinger]

Blah I knew I should have added an "on the fence" option. Done now.

[Lizzie]

I am blissfully oblivious to any "massive" differences... I'll take the guess that there's supposed to be a "massive" difference.

Okay, just because that was they way it was designed, doesn't mean it can't be made better, or that it wasn't poorly designed in the first place. Do you think there SHOULD be a massive difference, is what I'm asking.

Both from a game-play standpoint, and a realism standpoint, I think it should not be as broad as it is.

So hitting harder isn't the same as being stronger.

Are you going to bring this tangent around to the topic at hand?

I'm one of the people who clicked on 'no opinion.' Mostly because I don't know what you mean by "massive" nor do I particularly care. But for the sake of discussion - here's a thought of mine:

Using this scale:

poor = 1
below average = 2
average = 3
above average = 4
good = 5
very good = 6
extremely good = 7
excellent  = 8
absolutely incredible = 9

Good is just slightly better than half the quality of AI. To me, that means massively. If it is just slightly better than half the quality of AI, with 1 being the worst (rather than 0), then yes - I think it should be massively worse than AI. If by "massively" you mean an 8 instead of a 9, then no - I don't think it should be massively. I think it should be extraordinarily massively to the extreme. If by "massively" you mean 2 instead of 9, then I also think it shouldn't be massively - I would say "somewhat worse than fair to middlin."

But using the scale of 1-9 with 9 being AI and good being 5, then yes - that's massively, and that's okiedokie by me.


Also I avoid the realism card because elves, magickers, desert planet with three moons, mindbenders, sorcerer kings, mekillots.

[not_really_mean]

I personally like the broad range of stats and think it adds variety to the game.

I agree with Moe that while strength is a factor, it's not the only factor in determining damage. If you need proof of that just look at your day 1 sparring hits vs your day 20. In regards to your point about humans hitting harder than HGs I disagree with that as well.  My personal experience is that a HG with below avg strength hits waaaay harder than any other race I've played provided all other things are equal (weapon, experience, target armor etc...).

What I don't understand in regards to stats is if there is presumably a short list of "unplayable stats" why are they even rollable?  It's not as big a deal with the HG example because that's a karma required race, but if I was a brand newbie and rolled an elf that couldn't wield a weapon, I'd spend a total of 15 minutes before leaving and never coming back. it just seems like that problem has a five minute code fix to deal with it proactively rather than reactively. 

I'm not trying to derail your topic, so sorry if that last part was slightly tangential.  The bottom line for me is that the difference between awesome stats and crappy ones is one of the things I like about Arm.

[Nergal]

For what it's worth, those examples that I used in an Ask the Staff answer (which you then took as examples for the OP) are extremely contrived and highly unlikely. The lowest agility half-giant I could possibly make could still wield two items. The lowest strength elf I could make could still wield daggers and other light weapons.

While I can't go into excessive detail, it's safe to say that changing the stat system isn't as simple as knocking off some descriptors at either end of the spectrum. Each race has a range of base stat numbers for each of the four stats. The stat you roll is modified by your age. Your idea is already kind of implemented - the base rolls already cover "below average" to "exceptional" - it's other factors that can push a roll down to poor, or up to absolutely incredible. The descriptor is a vague measure of your stat, relative to others of your race. A poor strength half-giant is still stronger than an AI strength human, and a poor agility elf is going to be faster than an AI agility half-giant. That said, as I noted in the reply to the ATS question, there's an easy way to avoid having bad stats, if you're willing to accept the fact that there's more behind a "poor" stat than you think.

That's all I can really say without giving too much away. These discussions tend to end up in anecdotal arguments about damage and who can take whom in a fight. Hopefully what I said sheds at least a little light on the whole process of rolling.

[not_really_mean]

That sounds like a pretty solid explanation and seems very reasonable now knowing the examples listed were super unlikely and not as utterly crippling (light weapons vs. no weapons).  Thanks!

[Patuk]

I, too, think stat ranges are too broad. The gdb is pointless for discussing this kind of thing though.

[RogueGunslinger]

Pretty much. I should have kept the OP simple. People are focusing on the wrong things.

I personally like the broad range of stats and think it adds variety to the game.

This is a sentiment that I completely understand. But that variety comes with a cost, and that cost is creativity.  To me I'd much rather have experience and roleplay and skills, and time spent in-game be the true decider of how good your PC is, and how different they are from everyone else. I think randomized stats plays too big of a factor in how our characters are shaped.

I'd much rather see AI as something handed out to people who've spent years in-game training. Not just to the person who got lucky on a dice roll. I'd much rather extremely weak/strong, fast/slow, enduring/frail be a product of roleplay, not a crap shoot where the majorty of the time you get a chance of having 2 high stats and 2 low stats.

I would much rather see less people gaming the character creation process with perfect combinations of age, height, race, and guild just to mitigate that randomness.




Nergal thanks for a little insight into how things work. I know that it isn't as simple as knocking a few things off either end of a spectrum. I would be just as happy with the range's for stats lowered and the number of levels of attributes stay the same. It's just poor would now be slightly better and AI slightly worse.

[Hauwke]

The thing I have noticed with statd, is that the difference between bring an 'uber-demi god' of combat is having just enough strength to beat someones armor and or natural resistance (Im looking at u dorfs) And so long as you dont get hit you should be fine until you take a crit.
I mean I had a dorf warrio fresh out of the gate die to several nasty critters... After about 10 mins of combat and dealing plenty of damage simply because the attacks werent bouncing.
Now take a look at an Elf with below average strength. Not only can they barely hold a pokey stick they cant pair it with gear or armor. Sure at high skill they can pwn things since lulz elf agi.

I have never had the chance to play a HG but i will admit, i have seen humans do as much damage as a HG albeit not at the same consistancy. Just my thoughts on it.

Edit: I actually think a good idea to deal with the crippling stats would be to allow stat bumps again. While sure there is definately ways to abuse it i still think that elf who cant wield a wood sparring sword will be able to strengthen himself by you know... Swinging a rock at stuff I guess?
Or that HG should be able to work out how to improve how much he can carry because you know, Practice makes perfect. If it does get implemented in any form it should totally be capped on the amount though. Only one or two points at most.

[Dar]

I am personally still of opinion that stats shouldnt even be in the game. Everyone should be average statted and maybe have healthy foodstuffs affecting your stats.

[Jihelu]

If we added a whole 'do shit ig to level up stats' thing everyone would be ripped.

[RogueGunslinger]

If we added a whole 'do shit ig to level up stats' thing everyone would be ripped.

Naw, dude. People die fast. And it could easily be something that takes a lot of time.

[Jihelu]

If we added a whole 'do shit ig to level up stats' thing everyone would be ripped.

Naw, dude. People die fast. And it could easily be something that takes a lot of time.

Bruh I'll bench every god damn day so help me god.

[Saellyn]

When you see a human doing vicious/unspeakable/frightening damage, it may look like they're doing the same damage.

A human probably isn't doing 50-60 damage on a body hit, however. Half-giants can and do regularly knock off about that much hp just slicing your chest up.