Randomized Stats and the Strength Stat (not just encumbrance)

[Armaddict]

Your willingness to suicide a character early on to avoid negative stats is not a problem with the stat system, but your experience/expectation out of the game.

The variation exists.  I play the variation, very often with success that must be -startling- to people who say high stats are a necessity.  Many others play the variation, as well.  You saying you never want to be on the lower end of the spectrum in any stats does not justify a change.

Likewise, I've had lower stats, but no absolutely horrid rolls in at least a decade.  I think this area was already trimmed to a degree and with stat prioritization...yeah.  I'm pretty well-and-good with the last given staff position, I think.

Edited to add:  I actually find things like the encumbrance of leather armor to be a far more valuable discussion than this.  Evening out stats in a very heavy RPG seems like a very poorly conceived bandaid to a variety of more interesting issues that could be tackled without detracting from the idea that some people are born with it, some claw their way against the odds to the top.  Having no 'underdog' characters is a detraction from the story element of the game in favor of an MMO order progression.  Stop trying to make everything about balance, it doesn't fit well into the Armageddon Story Paradigm.

[Narf]

I'm not a big fan of stat inflation either. It doesn't solve the core problems and it won't keep the unhappy people happy for very long.

But I think there's a lot of positive changes that could be made that don't result in a net increase in stats across the player population. These changes could focus on making low stat characters more palatable rather than actually increasing their stats.

[Delirium]

I'm not a big fan of stat inflation either. It doesn't solve the core problems and it won't keep the unhappy people happy for very long.

But I think there's a lot of positive changes that could be made that don't result in a net increase in stats across the player population. These changes could focus on making low stat characters more palatable rather than actually increasing their stats.

+1

[Rokal]

I'm not a big fan of stat inflation either. It doesn't solve the core problems and it won't keep the unhappy people happy for very long.

But I think there's a lot of positive changes that could be made that don't result in a net increase in stats across the player population. These changes could focus on making low stat characters more palatable rather than actually increasing their stats.

+1

I +1 this as well.

[Desertman]

Everyone wants great stats.

If everyone had great stats then great stats wouldn't be great anymore.

I like it how it is.

Some people just want fair stats.

Some people want fairer, but not quite totally fair stats.

Some people don't give a damn whether their stats are good or bad compared to other people, but just want their character concept realized.

All of these people exist as glaring holes in your claim, staring at you. Watching you while you sleep.

I believe the stat system already is fair.

The system exists already that allows you to ensure almost without fail that your character will be strong, fast, smart, or tough.

If you ever prioritize strength and get poor strength I will stand corrected, but to my knowledge, that hasn't happened to anyone.

The only people this is an issue for are people who want to be fast, strong, smart and tough and feel like it's only fair if they are.

Those are the same sorts of people I always ignore, so they can keep staring, and I will keep ignoring.

[Dan]

I wouldn't mind more rerolls, so long as each subsequent reroll lowered the total possible stat points each time.

Example:

Forty possible stat points with an initial roll.

Reroll for forty possible stats with reroll undo option.

Reroll.

Thirty nine stat points possible.

Reroll.

Thirty eight stat points possible... Etc. Down to 20 or 30 total points over all stats, numbers are obviously just an example.

Alternatively, lower the 'cap' the stats can reach by one point every Reroll.  After one reroll, no chance at AI, after two, no exceptionals possible... Etc.

[Inks]

Eh. I have played 5 pcs out of 56 with more than good str. While that hurts, agility is underestimated a lot.

I am fine with how it is I guess? That being said Armaddict is spouting some crazy vet rhetoric there. I have suicided or stored concepts ruined by stats in the past. Almost everyone posting on both sides has. I don't like a concept being ruined by a random die roll but I feel I like the way the game works overall. If the range was reduced between average and AI I would be fine with it.

Either way

[RogueGunslinger]

The system should be intuitive, and benefit newbies just as much as vets. Age shouldn't be as much a factor. Stat-range could be narrowed.

[Jingo]

Stats would be fine if strength didn't limit the equipment you could use. Right now it's pretty huge when I can't wield that kickass greatspear that was gifted to my character because my strength is at average. It also makes managing encumbrance a needless chore.

And if the variability was tweaked so that the gonzo outliers were cut out off the bell curve I would be happy. If stats went from average to extremely good, I would have no problem.

And yes, currently there is a problem. People don't play low rolls. The cumulative chance of getting a low roll might be 5%. But that's also 5% of role calls and 5% of family roles. From what I've seen these characters aren't played for long just because the long term benefit of playing versus storing for another role is too low.

I don't see how variation in characters is a good argument either. Since as I mentioned, low rolls just aren't played.

[Inks]

This is rare but I have to agree with Jingo re: roles. Getting poor stats on a family role would be sad. Play magickers on family roles.

[hyzhenhok]

My experience is family members who roll good stats get cocky and get themselves killed.

[Delirium]

My experience is family members get themselves killed.

OT,

I don't mind low stats if they support, or at least don't impede, my character concept. I've played extremely low stats for long periods of time.

But the encumbrance juggling game when something that would be a great character prop turns out to just be too heavy to carry around is a great example of why stats can turn into annoyances rather than something that supports a story. But there's a whole nother thread dedicated to that one.

[Armaddict]

That being said Armaddict is spouting some crazy vet rhetoric there.

My crazy vet rhetoric is that if you make a new character, come flying out of the gates, and instantly come up with ways to shit on your own character on why it's inadequate instead of starting your steady upward movement through your character's story, then yes, you will of course find problems that you insist need fixing; you're looking for reasons to find your character sucky before they've had a chance to be anything else.

So as my edit clearly states and was even rephrased (more clearly than I said it) in the post afterwards...instead of focusing on 'equalizing', focus on the troublesome effects that make variation poorly implemented.  I.e. Encumbrance is the big one, and is under discussion in the other thread.

I like how in most places, people tend to listen to people with more exposure and experience to problems and solutions in a given setting, but people here constantly try to twist it into a hostile state that is just trying to keep you down.  Yes, I am conservative against change, because vast sweeping changes often bring about unintended consequences.  In a stable platform, like a game that has run for twenty years, such is a thing that warrants deep discussion and checks and balances to insure it doesn't promote or demote anything wonky that is not on the surface.    My assertion that the focus of this thread is on something that is not the actual problem, and so 'fixing it' is unneeded, but rather that there are other areas that are influenced by this area that -could- use improvement is not crazy vet 'don't change anything', it's 'I think the problem exists elsewhere rather than one of the main areas that promotes diversity.'

The solution proposed in equalizing stats and lowering ranges is working under an argument, implicit or explicit, that 'Every warrior should be within one or two points of strength of each other, with smaller degrees of variance in other stats'.  I find that argument one that detracts from the proposed goal of the game, which is to be a game, but a very specific kind of game that is not rooted in the conventions that other games put far more emphasis on.  Balance is one of those things.  We don't do PvP ability testing.  We don't make sure mage1 v mage2 is always capable of the same sort of things.  We make sure that roles are attainable, that the interaction between roles forms narrative, believable stories.  While I can say that stats can prevent attainment of that role...I would also say that is only the case if you didn't prioritize that very important part.

Now.  I realize you basically agreed with me.  But that statement was, I imagine, meant to alienate me from the conversation.  So I thought perhaps a more elaborate response on why it wasn't just some crazy idea out of left field was warranted, so that you could understand why I think this thread is indeed addressing certain impediments, but is fixating on the wrong solution.  In my crazy rhetoric-constrained veteran opinion, of course.

[Jingo]

I'm a vet too. Not quite as old as mccrotchedy over here though. 

The "assumption" is the same one everyone else makes. It's a cost benefit analysis that we make when they first see the stats given the character.

Do I want to spend a month struggling with combat before I can reach baseline acceptability? Do I want to wrestle with encumbrance issues for the rest of this character? Do I want to continue this character even though one lucky swipe could could nullify a month of progress?

I don't like the status quo argument. Just because something has been that way for years, doesn't mean it can't be tweaked.

I don't like the variation argument. I don't want to play a gimp (most of the time).

[BadSkeelz]

The gimp should always be an option, via spec-app. I'm not a big fan of them being a surprise to the player.

I've suggested it before and I'll suggest it again: a third reroll option that gives you average stats across the board, no take backs. Just an emergency bailout, "Better average than stilted towards unplayable" stats.

[titansfan]

We could always build a char around the stats provided.

A) Racial Selection

B) Class Selection

C) Stats,
These will be your pregenerated stats, keep in mind if you do not like your stats you can
have the option to reroll a single time.
You get VG str, Good wis, Average agi and AA End,
Would you like to keep these stats?
Yes or No
If No Reroll process happens

D) Now that you know your stats upfront, you can build a character concept around that. And you
will know if your stats will allow that concept. No more Rangers not able to wield bows and the likes.

Lets say someone doesn't like either set of stats, they can have the option to try to make another
character (Aborting the current one), 12 hours later, or even 24 hours later with different stat choices.

Thoughts?

I really like this idea. I know this would greatly help me with my development. I love making descriptions and backgrounds, but knowing my stats before going IG, I'd fall in love with that...

[Dan]

I don't support a system that rewards churning stats over and over and gives the most to someone that spends the most time rerolling until they get perfect stats.

[wizturbo]

The gimp should always be an option, via spec-app. I'm not a big fan of them being a surprise to the player.

I've suggested it before and I'll suggest it again: a third reroll option that gives you average stats across the board, no take backs. Just an emergency bailout, "Better average than stilted towards unplayable" stats.

Agreed.   It's already extremely unlikely you'll get unplayable stats via prioritization, but in the off chance you do anyway, re-roll bailout would make this a bullet proof issue.

[wizturbo]

I don't support a system that rewards churning stats over and over and gives the most to someone that spends the most time rerolling until they get perfect stats.

What a silly way to try and get good stats.  Just special app a genetic lotto winner, and save yourself a lot of time, bad account notes, and flooding the game with newbie boots.

[BadSkeelz]

I think it's been said by staff that the "suiciding for stats" phenomena is really not that common.

Personally, I like the range in character attributes. I like being able to roleplay an exceptional character. I'm fine with playing an adequate one, too. I haven't wanted to play a weak PC yet but hey, the day might come. I don't like the thought of a character concept becoming suddenly untenable because I roll some bad stats that I feel are "crucial" to my PC's survival and concept. (Full disclosure: I average about 1.5 exceptional stats per PC, so this is mostly paranoia on my part.)

Would the game really lose all that much if we never saw a PC with Below Average or Poor stats again? Between suicide and stat-prioritization (with the latter being far more influential), most PCs that rely on stats are going to be in the good-to-exceptional range anyway. We might all get a chuckle when Runner Toothless rolls in with their 60 hp and average breed strength, but Runner Meanmachine over there is still going to rule the hall with his AI strength and exceptional agility. Exceptional PCs don't become any less exceptional because there's no longer any poor PCs - poor PCs are so uncommon already they don't really influence the game except in anxiety we have in character generation.

Tie this in with the ongoing "Fixing weights" project and there'd be even less to complain about.

[Dan]

I don't support a system that rewards churning stats over and over and gives the most to someone that spends the most time rerolling until they get perfect stats.

What a silly way to try and get good stats.  Just special app a genetic lotto winner, and save yourself a lot of time, bad account notes, and flooding the game with newbie boots.

I should have quoted. I was referring to shadeaux's post.

[Riev]

Hello.

Arm is not balanced. Classes are not balanced. There will never be balance.

Stats matter in the beginning of the game, and the end game, but otherwise have little effect on how well/not well a PC performs their job. The idea of "acceptable" in combat is laughable, staff run plots tend to have a curve to make sure there aren't one hit kills and give people a chance. It may take 20days played of combat training until you can not die to a passing scrab/spider/etc but that is not "acceptable" in combat.

I tend to judge people more by "how long have they been around". Having 20days played with tons of sweet skills is great, those people are awesome to utilize. But I tend to gravitate towards people that have been around a RL month, are relatively consistent, and have an interesting character. I've BEEN that PC that went outside the gates FAR before he was ready. Cool PC, had a few friends... should have trained more. 5-6 more days played of considerable practice and he'd have survived but... thems the breaks.

Stop telling me things about the game are unbalanced or broken. As a shitty, grumpy half-vet I will proudly say "This is how its been. Give me a reason to change it, better than "fairness" because if a Templar can still goon-squad you, no stats are going to matter."

[Armaddict]

poor PCs are so uncommon already they don't really influence the game except in anxiety we have in character generation.

I agree.  This is why the argument that this needs fixing is not being received that well.  I haven't seen 'character breaking' stats in a very long time.  My statement about suicide for rolls was in response to:

You may not have noticed, but current random stats encourage conformity.  That variety you say you love only exists for masochists.

Which I could have misinterpreted, but I read it as a statement that essentially people were going to keep trying to build the amazing stats until they succeeded.  That's the only way I see such a point holding water, because otherwise they can all prioritize strength, but that doesn't put them necessarily in the same ballpark as each other, which is what I like about it.

Exceptional PCs don't become any less exceptional because there's no longer any poor PCs - poor PCs are so uncommon already they don't really influence the game except in anxiety we have in character generation.

Mathematically false, but speaking in a matter of principle, the assertion is still being made that without this, there is a character-breaking stat system that needs hedging.  However, on this level of discussion, it has been brought up on several fronts that this is a very rare phenomenon, which makes the argument more akin to 'I don't like playing with the possibility of less than what I want for stats' or something along that vein, which I don't think holds much water as far as a guiding principle for changes made to the game.

I think the reroll bailout is a fine option, though.

Arm is not balanced. Classes are not balanced. There will never be balance.

Very curt.  But it leaves out the part that I think is important; this is not an ARPG.  This is not an MMORPG.  This is a hardcore, intense, RPI MUD.  It has a reputation for how hardcore it is.  It has the reputation for being -hard-, just the way it was wanted.  The world is brutal, and the game emphasizes that brutality with its own brutality.  This is not a platform to launch successful PC after successful PC.  This is...a text based roguelike that is based around making the best narrative.  There is no endgame, only the journey along the narrative.  Some are short and amazing.  Some are funny.  Some are long and amazing.  Some are utterly lackluster but the potentiality of it all makes it riveting.  Some of them suck. 

None of them are prophesied accurately by your statistic roll.

[Kryos]

Since this keeps getting skipped over, perhaps a change in tact.

The second option I mentioned, keeping the system as it is except, after application approval you see the stat pool and distribute it yourself.  It doesn't change change the system other than allow greater granularity and player control.

As for Riev's sentiment:  I think that's great.  If that's how you enjoy things, good on you.  But I don't even have to bet there are a pile of other players who do not.  And from a game wide perspective, its healthier for a game to do the greater good.

[Jingo]

Arm is not balanced. Classes are not balanced. There will never be balance.

I don't think this has ever been a good argument. I remember hearing this in 2004. And oh boy have things been balanced since.