Strength

[Krath]

I know how many times X-D has hit the caps, with 100% certainty.

This made me lol. I do not know why though.

[Narf]

This seems pretty reasonable to me. They don't start as t the same point, and the others don't have the same cap on weapon skills or combat skills. Off/Def don't even show up in your skill list either. Pretty sure all the mundane classes have the same cap on contact and barrier too.

A fighter/Enforcer/raider should not have the same O/D cap as a Stalker/scout/infiltrator/miscreant. Please explain the logic behind this except that it is "equal and Fair" to all classes.

Why wouldn't it be equal? O/D cap has very little to do with overall power. It's one factor amongst many. You can't claim that because a warrior has the same O/D cap as a merchant that they're anywhere near equal in potential combat capability. So why are you stressing about the fact that one of the half-dozen factors in the combat equation happens to be equalized across classes?

You know the classes have the same height and weight distributions too. Those are stats, they effect combat, should they be "balanced" as well?

[Krath]

If you think that O/D has little to do with overall power you are -very- sadly mistaken.  Brokkr, can you go into the details of how O/D affect combat?

[Dar]

If you think that O/D has little to do with overall power you are -very- sadly mistaken.  Brokkr, can you go into the details of how O/D affect combat?

The learning rate is different. If a warrior needs a year+ to one day maybe cap out with O/D. A merxhant would need 4 years. Its still possible. There is no need to artificially create an absolute deadend. But by the time that merchant hits that max offensw, 30+ game yeara will pass.

[evilcabbage]

to my knowledge offense/defense has "never" capped at different levels for anyone, from the guilds of before to the classes of today (confirmed by brokkr).

so as far as i know, no change was made on that front. why is this an issue?

[Krath]

to my knowledge offense/defense has "never" capped at different levels for anyone, from the guilds of before to the classes of today (confirmed by brokkr).

so as far as i know, no change was made on that front. why is this an issue?

It was always my understanding that O/D had different Caps prior to the implementation of the new classes.

Brokkr, can you provide clarity or do us old timers and new timers have to continue to speculate.

Editted to clarify my pist

[Armaddict]

O/D had different Caps prior to the implementation of the new classes.

Erm.  This was never my understanding.  I understood it to be similar before...same cap for all, but different learning rates.  It was the skills on top of it and influencing it that made big disparities of 'power'.

Far from sure of it, but that was always the allusion to offense/defense that I saw in the sporadic discussions that were allowed on the topic.

[Brokkr]

I'm going to preface this with while I am generally supportive of more information in the hands of players, I believe there is an inflection point where certain information tends to increase tendancies towards focusing on skills, min/maxing and being codedly "the best", which is almost always at the cost of role playing. If I seem cagey in some of my replies, it is because strength and off/def fall pretty squarely into that space.

That said...

The old classes did not have off/def caps.  You didn't see many merchants wrecking face, and despite the addition of weapon skills to Heavy Merchantile classes, which does increase their combat power somewhat, I don't expect you'll see them wrecking face much either.

The new classes have, in general, a slightly better rate of learning for off/def than the old classes did.  This is partly because there is a dramatic cutoff when we talk about learning off/def, and that is the changes made that incorporate the differentials between your off/def and your opponent's off/def in the chance to gain. Before this change there was the possibility of getting to off/def cap by fighting relatively safe NPCs with high agility and low off/def scores. And hardly anyone ever hit the off/def cap. I'd give you a sense of how far you are off in your calculations, but see my first paragraph.

If you try to learn from those low off/def NPCs now, the low off/def scores of your opponent will create a situation where you literally have zero chance to learn off/def from those NPCs, irregardless of skill failures. You will only learn through taking very real risks, or a situation of having PCs that are relatively near your skill level.

That said, those calculations also make it easier to relatively decent ranges of off/def skill given a moderately skilled opponent. It can be relatively complex, especially when you factor in stats, and I am not going to unravel it all (see first paragraph). Best bet is to focus on getting decent enough to do what you want your character to be able to do, rather than worrying about getting to caps (a very, very OOC thing).

[lostinspace]

Thanks for the transparency, I really appreciate it.

[Hauwke]

The old classes did not have off/def caps.  You didn't see many merchants wrecking face, and despite the addition of weapon skills to Heavy Merchantile classes, which does increase their combat power somewhat, I don't expect you'll see them wrecking face much either.

Are you saying that a legacy Warrior/ranger/whatver could gain off/def indefinately?

[tapas]

I'm going to preface this with while I am generally supportive of more information in the hands of players, I believe there is an inflection point where certain information tends to increase tendancies towards focusing on skills, min/maxing and being codedly "the best", which is almost always at the cost of role playing. If I seem cagey in some of my replies, it is because strength and off/def fall pretty squarely into that space.

That said...

The old classes did not have off/def caps.  You didn't see many merchants wrecking face, and despite the addition of weapon skills to Heavy Merchantile classes, which does increase their combat power somewhat, I don't expect you'll see them wrecking face much either.

The new classes have, in general, a slightly better rate of learning for off/def than the old classes did.  This is partly because there is a dramatic cutoff when we talk about learning off/def, and that is the changes made that incorporate the differentials between your off/def and your opponent's off/def in the chance to gain. Before this change there was the possibility of getting to off/def cap by fighting relatively safe NPCs with high agility and low off/def scores. And hardly anyone ever hit the off/def cap. I'd give you a sense of how far you are off in your calculations, but see my first paragraph.

If you try to learn from those low off/def NPCs now, the low off/def scores of your opponent will create a situation where you literally have zero chance to learn off/def from those NPCs, irregardless of skill failures. You will only learn through taking very real risks, or a situation of having PCs that are relatively near your skill level.

That said, those calculations also make it easier to relatively decent ranges of off/def skill given a moderately skilled opponent. It can be relatively complex, especially when you factor in stats, and I am not going to unravel it all (see first paragraph). Best bet is to focus on getting decent enough to do what you want your character to be able to do, rather than worrying about getting to caps (a very, very OOC thing).

Correct me if I am wrong. But if your sparring partner has better stats, but lower off/def, then you will not see any progress? Even if they consistently beat you out of the sparring ring?

This would make strength and agility far more important.

[mansa]

...
Are you saying that a legacy Warrior/ranger/whatver could gain off/def indefinately?

...Before this change there was the possibility of getting to off/def cap by fighting relatively safe NPCs with high agility and low off/def scores. And hardly anyone ever hit the off/def cap....

...[new changes to offense/defence skill progression] also make it easier to [gain] relatively decent ranges of off/def skill given a moderately skilled opponent...

1) Fighting "offence" and "defence" have always had a cap.   The cap was/is the same for all classes.


It appears that there's now a comparison between the the people in the fight, and incorporating their skills into the equation whether they should 'gain skill' or not, rather just a flat rate of 'fail 100 times and get 1% gain'

I would assume that if you're fighting someone better than you, it's more like 'fail 50 times and a chance at 1% gain' and if you fight someone worse than you, it's more like 'fail 1000 times and get a 1% gain'.



This would have your character not be able to get better after fighting the same npcs again and again, seeming reaching an artificial cap of skill progression.

[Bogre]

Where Arm fails, though, is stats being fixed.

Maybe, at least, there should be some hidden encumbrance skill you can train by carrying around heavy stuff.

An 'armor use' skill is actually a nice QOL thing that could give the two top combat tiers some nice bonuses. Maybe have it increase the worn weight reduction %. (Alternatively, it could be like the pain tolerance / stam recovery thing and just be a coded benefit). Soldier/Fighter would obviously derive the most benefit, but it could give Infiltrator / Scout / Soldier tier a nice help.

[X-D]

Yeah...I don't know about that one.

I have worn armor MANY MANY MANY times, Own quite a bit, some I have made some others have made...Been slowly working on a nice bronze set...anyway.

Thing is, Armor is...well, harder to put on right then anything. Quality armor put on properly is actually less noticeable to your movements etc then a couple layers of heavy clothing with a leather coat.

Something like an "armor wearing" Skill is pushing the realms of believability for me...alright, not pushing, outright breaking.

[Marauder Moe]

I think it should be more to reflect the physical conditioning.

[X-D]

Well, like I said before...just increase the weight reduction to worn items a bit...if you want, even base it on class to show that these classes are a bit more used to wearing armor...So an elf fighter could wear slightly heavier armor then an elf miscreant of the same strength. Really would not affect the already strong races much anyway.

[mansa]

Well, like I said before...just increase the weight reduction to worn items a bit...if you want, even base it on class to show that these classes are a bit more used to wearing armor...So an elf fighter could wear slightly heavier armor then an elf miscreant of the same strength. Really would not affect the already strong races much anyway.

I like it.  I'd give it numbers like:

If "heavy" combat -> armor weight  = weight * 0.75
If "light" combat -> armor weight = weight * 0.85

[Cind]

At one of the Luirsfest, an elf kicked a dwarf's butt and neither were greenhorns to the art of fighting.

In all fairness though, the dwarf never managed to land a hit.

[Eyeball]

At one of the Luirsfest, an elf kicked a dwarf's butt and neither were greenhorns to the art of fighting.

In all fairness though, the dwarf never managed to land a hit.

Well, for every example like this, there are probably a hundred of the reverse. Realistically, dwarves are an "I win" button at character creation time. It's no mystery why the toughest raiders have been dwarves. It's no mystery why fresh-from-char-creation dwarves kick the asses of humans who have been training diligently for an in-game year or more.

[X-D]

Wait wait wait...the toughest raiders have been what now? Dwarves? HAHAHAHAHA. Oh...that is funny. No, the toughest raiders have been Elves and Gith...possibly halflings in there too. But Since two races were removed from play, in one case existence and the one that is playable the raiding tribes have been closed to play....

In fact, Black moon was mostly humans...with a reasonable spread of other races....Though...I only ever had run-ins with humans and do not personally remember any other races.

Dwarves....giggle.

[Eyeball]

Wait wait wait...the toughest raiders have been what now? Dwarves? HAHAHAHAHA. Oh...that is funny. No, the toughest raiders have been Elves and Gith...possibly halflings in there too. But Since two races were removed from play, in one case existence and the one that is playable the raiding tribes have been closed to play....

In fact, Black moon was mostly humans...with a reasonable spread of other races....Though...I only ever had run-ins with humans and do not personally remember any other races.

Dwarves....giggle.

Given the context of the conversation, did I really need to say "these days"?

Yes, the unseeable desert elves with their single-shot arrows of doom were nigh invincible, but they were/are confined to their corner of the world for the most part. The Red Fangs are gone. I haven't seen a gith raider that wasn't staff run for twenty years. Not going to name names, but in the present, dwarves are the top of the PC combat-character food chain.

[evilcabbage]

just wanted to say, fresh from creation dwarves do not kick the asses of humans for a year if they're the same class or similar class.

[tapas]

Really unsure why some players are so intensely invested in gaslighting the rest of the playerbase about the stat system.

[Hauwke]

If your pc that has been around for a year and you get beaten in a straight up fight by a brand new pc, even a dwarf, you were not skilling your combat pc up properly. Being able to hit a scrab reliably is not the only important part of combat.

[Brytta Léofa]

If your pc that has been around for a year and you get beaten in a straight up fight by a brand new pc, even a dwarf, you were not skilling your combat pc up properly. Being able to hit a scrab reliably is not the only important part of combat.

Is it possible to "not skill your combat PC up properly" if you join one of the major fighting clans (Byn, AoD, Garrison, etc.) and follow the prescribed training regimen?