Stat Ranges - Too Broad?

[MeTekillot]

I once had a half-giant do 110 damage on a neck-shot to me.

[Saellyn]

You won't see many humans doing that. Ever. I don't even think it's POSSIBLE for a human to do that kind of damage without assistance from our disgusting magicker pals.

[Nergal]

Yes, I think it's fair to say that not all "unspeakable damage" damages are created equal. In fact as the last descriptor for damage, it covers the largest range of damage amounts.

[RogueGunslinger]

People keep going back to my Giant example.   Fine guys, I'll argue more about the Giant example with you.

Yes, I think it's fair to say that not all "unspeakable damage" damages are created equal. In fact as the last descriptor for damage, it covers the largest range of damage amounts.

It's also fair to assume I took that into account, which is why I mentioned Vicious, as well as Grievous hits... Isn't "unspeakable damage" the last descriptor for damage?. It's also fair to assume I was talking about damage on warriors of similar days played (0). (At least I think these things are fair to assume, sometimes I wonder if you all think I'm retarded or something)

No, you won't see humans landing 100+ dmg blows. You won't see giants do that very often either. You get them trained and yeah, they can do it, but a High strength human warrior who is trained can also land 50+ dmg blows. A High strength giant, somewhat trained can land 30-50 dmg shots on a pretty common basis, unlike a human. A low strength half-giant though? I've had a blow bounce off of a scrab shell before(Memory is a little fuzzy on this example, I will admit). I've had kills where I never got anything over "very hard" and "wound" before. I couldn't have been the only person to notice things like this.

I suppose if we really wanted to focus on the "weak giant, strong human" example an IMM could just load them both up to kill a scrab and compare the damage ranges. Maybe everything I've seen was just bad luck, in regards to this example. Who knows.

[Saellyn]

The weapon probably also factors into that.

[Riev]

The weapon probably also factors into that.

We all know that unless the sdesc says wicked, war, or walloping that all weapons are created equal. (points to someone who mastercrafts me a walloping oversized banhammer)

I actually KIND of agree with Dar in that foods could/should affect stats in some way. Like, when parched/starving, rather than losing movement points and regen ability right off the top, you start losing points in endurance. Spitballing, on that one.

But I'm still not convinced either way that stat ranges are too broad, or too narrow. Perhaps its status quo, but homogenizing the descriptors doesn't feel like the answer to me. I'd be more for the descriptors to not just be standardized ranges, but say the difference between human EG strength to AI would be 5 points, but the difference between VG and EG would only be 3, etc. So that the higher rolls really are rare, AND powerful.

That would at least see more people rolling closer to the "average" descriptor.

[Hauwke]

If you made them broader you would need to make everything else more powerful. Since you know even npc's have stats.

[Medivh]

RGS, your first two examples are exaggerations, and Nergal mentioned what the truth is.
Two inventory spaces isn't unplayable. The weakest of elves can still use light weapons.

A poor str HG is stronger then an AI str human, but in terms of damage they can be comparable.
Damage isn't the best metric for comparing strength scores though. It has other variables.

The high end of stats isn't really an issue in a game like Arm. Plenty of things can still kill the AI strength warrior.
The low end of stats can be fun to roleplay, but isn't fun at all from certain code-side things. Two inventory spaces would be a pain in the ass. I think Synth mentioned once about having a Delf that couldn't kill anything, and bounced off every hit.
The low end of stats makes playing old or young characters annoying and frustrating.

I think the range should be narrowed, at the lowest end of stats.

[RogueGunslinger]

RGS, your first two examples are exaggerations,

Even if they're exaggerated in their own context it's not a big enough difference to take away from the point that we're skimming the top and the bottom of stat ranges.

The whole point is that a human doing comparable damage to a half-giant doesn't make any sense. It doesn't matter if Strength isn't the only thing affecting damage. Because I promise you it is the single most significant thing affecting damage at 0 days played.

Two inventory spaces isn't unplayable. The weakest of elves can use light weapons. Doesn't really matter, does it? I'm not debating play-ability, I'm simply pointing out how low and high we allow stats to fluctuate based on randomness. So what if it doesn't hit the very bottom of you not being able to pick up anything or wield anything... The fact we even get close to that on one end(numerous times I've seen elves not able to wield sparring weapons or shields), and an elf with AI strength is landing Very hard to vicious strikes on the other end, sort of makes my point.

Yes, everything I've based this on is personal experience and has been loosely defined. It's not anything I've written down data points for. It's just something you get a feel for after going through a lot of PC's. The difference between a PC with low stats and high stats is massive. Usually after someone says something like that is when people start to say things like "yes, but skills are much more important, and you can still be a badass with poor stats." Which would be once again, completely missing the point.

[RogueGunslinger]

As an interesting aside, lowering the range would make the difference between races much more noticeable. Which I think would be pretty cool, because it would make each race feel like they have more of a niche, instead of basically being comparable to a fast/strong human.

[Medivh]

The exaggeration on the elf example is massive. There is a huge difference between being able to use weapons, and not using any at all. It does take away from your point. The range between poor and AI isn't as big as you thought, and your proof is from staff. The ranges are big, but you haven't proved that it is an issue. You haven't shown that this change is something we should want.

Your change wouldn't cause less whining, because there will always be whining. Unless everyone just has average for whatever race, or we do point-buy.
Your change does make race impact stats more then it currently does.
Your change doesn't make less god-like PCs, because stats don't do that on their own.
You're not arguing for play-ability sake.

You're suggestion makes the difference in stats between races more noticeable.
I think the stat differences are okay as is. The only race that doesn't see anything that noticeable are half-elves compared to humans. Which makes sense to me.

On the Hgiant's example
Damage isn't the only thing strength does. In encumbrance and weight of weapon you can wield that poor str HG can do things the AI str human cannot do what so ever. That HG can hit harder then that human ever could.
If strength is the biggest thing affecting damage, then even at 0 days played the HG will still do more damage then that human.
Yes a HG and human should be able to do comparable damage, because both of those races can make attacks that only -just- make contact. And even with that any HG will always do more damage then any human. (Not counting in magick)

Maybe you would like to see a change in how strength factors into damage?

[Hauwke]

I think RGS did point out how the gap is massive. I mean the fact i have seen an elf unable to hold a goodbsized weapon. Eg i see elves constantly unable to wield bone shortswords. Thats the case for low end elf str. High end elf str im seeing those plucky bastards one handing s bastard sword with ease and doing hits of at least very hard half the time.
Now i agree you do get freakishly strong people sometimes and you grt uber durable guys at times. But the thing is you do gimped by 'lulz i haz 2 2hand a woody daggers

[Medivh]

He has said he isn't arguing for play-ability sake.
I actually do agree, and voted so, on the stated change. Just on different reasoning. Mostly because the lowest end of stats is very painful to play. Poor elf str sucks dick.

[Harmless]

I think just being able to preview the stats you'll end up with and having a chance to re-prioritize or re-order them before playing will allow us to avoid awful low-end stats blues. (Or at least, to have the ones we can live with). One possibility would be to just re-label the "stat priority" concept as "assigning bonuses" Roll four times and add them to the desired stats, of which you have some random base roll.

Or whatever. There's a bunch of ways to make the process make more sense and be more predictable, while maintaining the natural variation we crave

[RogueGunslinger]

This post a ways back might help explain some of the reasoning behind why I like the idea, Medivh. Admittedly there are multiple ways to fix the problems I've talked about, as Harmless just stated.

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.

He has said he isn't arguing for play-ability sake.

When I said that I meant in relation to low stats being annoying. There are other play-ability factors.


My OP wasn't very clear. At the end of the day I'd be happy with any system that:

      A: Pushes PC's closer to average stats than the current does and is less random.
      B: Puts exceptionally good or bad stats in the realm of boosts/nerfs from roleplay, special apps, magick, spice, poisons

[tapas]

There is another problem with strength that everyone forgets to talk about it. Not only can high strength characters wield heavier weapons that do more damage (many very good weapons have hefty strength requirments) but also are able to mitigate damage by comfortably wearing heavier armors.

Staff often tell us about how they model these scenarios. I'd like to hear about a test in which a 10 day dwarf warrior with wicked stats and the best equipment they can wear fairs against a 30 day elf warrior with lowish strength, also wearing the best equipment they can wear.

[Alesan]

Experiments done in this fashion would work a lot better if there is only one variable.

Every time I see someone talk about pitting this against that, there's always two or three variables in the equation and I end up wondering how you get any kind of solid answer.

Pit a 30 day, high strength with best gear against a 30 day, low strength with best gear. That might actually tell you something.

[Lizzie]

Experiments done in this fashion would work a lot better if there is only one variable.

Every time I see someone talk about pitting this against that, there's always two or three variables in the equation and I end up wondering how you get any kind of solid answer.

Pit a 30 day, high strength with best gear against a 30 day, low strength with best gear. That might actually tell you something.

Only if they had the exact same training, against the exact same opposition and their "low" is the exact same numeric "low" value (remember all of these stats are in a range of numeric values - so for every "Warrior A" with 5 "poor" strength, there'll be a Warrior B with 6 "poor" strength. Obviously the 6 will be a higher "low" compared to the 5. Since none of us has any way of knowing which *exact* value anyone is at, at any given moment, any experiments will be flawed - at best. Utterly pointless, at worst.

[Alesan]

Experiments done in this fashion would work a lot better if there is only one variable.

Every time I see someone talk about pitting this against that, there's always two or three variables in the equation and I end up wondering how you get any kind of solid answer.

Pit a 30 day, high strength with best gear against a 30 day, low strength with best gear. That might actually tell you something.

Only if they had the exact same training, against the exact same opposition and their "low" is the exact same numeric "low" value (remember all of these stats are in a range of numeric values - so for every "Warrior A" with 5 "poor" strength, there'll be a Warrior B with 6 "poor" strength. Obviously the 6 will be a higher "low" compared to the 5. Since none of us has any way of knowing which *exact* value anyone is at, at any given moment, any experiments will be flawed - at best. Utterly pointless, at worst.

You're exactly right, but I was more or less assuming we were talking about staff doing the experiments and that's what I based my assumption on, staff making sure all the parameters are identical save for the one variable you are trying to get an answer on.

[Hauwke]

While I feel it should be more equal, if there wasnt any difference in stats then your 2 days played uber buff warrior couldnt be that exeptional student every Sarge wants to teach because we all know everyone deep down wants the strongest guy to help them.

[Case]

Split out a couple more stats maybe, or make carry capacity a factor of end and str? It is a little silly imo that basically all gickers always prioritise wisdom because there's little reason not to. More options there might vary it up some.

Make wearing armour a skill that helps reduce its capacity, reduce krathstriking in armour and helps improve its use a little. Could have a few types too

[Riev]

I'd be for a couple more uses for stats other than what we have. Honestly outside of a magicker, wisdom isn't a huge deal and nobody seems to care about it... endurance is a random roll off the endurance for your stats anyways, so I don't see many people putting it higher than 3rd on the list unless they want to be a TankDwarf. Strength and Agility kind of have a number of things that they affect, I just wish wisdom and endurance affected more than the OOC concept of skill timers, language acquisition maybe but mostly anecdotal, and "poison resistance" but last I checked the _tol variables don't invoke a single bit of code.

[Hauwke]

Endurance affects skill timers? Idk if they actually do but it doesnt make much sense for it to have any effect.

[Synthesis]

Vicious, grievous, wound, etc. are all exactly the same hp damage range, regardless of who or what is hitting.

Horrendous and unspeakable are exactly the same thing, from a different point of view, and the range on that is from whatever to infinity, because I suppose whoever wrote the code grew weary of finding increasingly-horrible-sounding descriptors.

[Hauwke]

Could top it with the fatty templar slashes you breed dicking your ego