Strength

[Eyeball]

Sounds like it's working perfectly.

So the bottom line is that, since no one is going to be going very high on offense/defense/who knows what else, strength is now more important than ever and stronger characters are always going to be totally dominant over "average" characters since the latter will either be of middling skill levels or dead.

[Lizzie]

No, not at all. An exceptionally strong elf who shows up out of chargen, is not going to be a match for a poor strength half-giant who's been wandering the wastes for the past 5 RL months.

An AI half-elf with 1 day played as an independent hunter type, won't hold a candle to a dwarf Byn trooper with poor strength but 20 days played with dual-wielded clubs. If the dwarf can get the first shot in, the breed will hurt.

Strength is not the end all and be all of combat. There are a number of variables that go into it, some of which are no-brainers and some sunken deep within the code that neither you nor I know a damned thing about.

[tapas]

Sounds like it's working perfectly. Their strength is exceptional. Yours is poor. That means you should expect failure, often, whenever you're dealing with them. No matter how good you get, you will never match or outdo the exceptional, if you are poor.

Strength is not the end all and be all of combat.

[Lizzie]

Sounds like it's working perfectly. Their strength is exceptional. Yours is poor. That means you should expect failure, often, whenever you're dealing with them. No matter how good you get, you will never match or outdo the exceptional, if you are poor.

Strength is not the end all and be all of combat.

If you're comparing strength to strength, and not taking into consideration anything else.

[Eyeball]

It's not reasonable for strength to always trump skill the way it does. Two people fighting with rapiers? The one with greater skill should win most every time, regardless of how much of a beast the less skilled opponent is, because that is the way they work. Finesse. This isn't reflected in Arm's combat system.

A lion is far stronger than a man, yet a man, weak or strong, can kill the lion with a well-placed spear thrust. This isn't reflected in Arm's combat system either. You have to just wear down the opponent as though you're using a club, and strength matters hugely in doing this.

[Namino]

I've played an average strength desert elf that branched advanced weapons, and I've played an exceptional strength human warrior that did the same.

The latter felt like a death dealing machine, frequently two-shotting rantarri with stun damage from a warspear, running over things like bahamet with ease. The former still bounced against gurth sometimes even at his peak.

They both seemed defensively identical despite one being an elf with elf agi and the other having average human agility. I might have noticed a bit faster attack speed on the elf but it wasn't anything to write home about.

Strength is very, very, very important. Agility you can take or leave. The ultimate determinant of combat prowess, however, is not strength, but your hidden offense and defense skills (in my opinion).

But here's the rub:

If you're playing Armageddon for an engrossing combat system with well thought out and balanced facets, then you're going to be sorely disappointed. This extends beyond the unequal weighting of stats.

At risk of being crotchety, the simple fact of the matter is that the code that governs combat in Armageddon is very bad. Everything from the janky nature of combat delay management, to spam-flee shenanigans, the leaning on of one-hit kill mechanics, all the way down to the inherently grindy and non-compelling skill-up mechanics for combat abilities... the list goes on and on.

I'm not assigning blame or just trying to dump on the game or anything, I swear. The fact of the matter is that Armageddon is many decades old now and is a Frankenstein's Monster of coding effort, and nowhere is this better demonstrated than in the combat code. It's a mess. It's not fun to fight in Armageddon, least of all when you can lose 50+ day characters to some serious jank as ancient pieces of code slam up against each other in unexpected ways.

I guess my ultimate point is that, yes, strength could be reworked to be more balanced in combat, but combat in Armageddon is never going to be good, and therefore shouldn't take center-stage as far as balancing effort is concerned. Reworking strength is like peeing into a hurricane in this regard.

The game is worth playing for a lot of notable reasons, like theme, and worldbuilding, and so forth. But combat is not one of them and I don't think it's within the power of any staffer or coder to adequately fix at this point.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I doubt that completely fixing the combat code is impossible. I just think it would be one of those really serious projects that would take real time to accomplish. But yeah, Armageddon as a primarily combative experience can be ... confusing. It's certainly the moments of absolutely awesome RP that drag me back time and time again.

[X-D]

I find most the combat code to be way more realistic then many of you give it credit for.

This coming from somebody who fights, past and present, unarmed, armed, blunt weapons, live steal over the last 30 years. Now no, I have not been in a sword to sword real life or death fight. But, without that, here is the thing. IRL armor, weapons, skill, stats pretty matched, fights take a while...often coming down to who has that last bit of wind or...that lucky shot. If not matched, fight take moments. In a real life or death, it only takes that one shot, that spear between the ribs and the fight is over, oh, it might be a minute till the other persons body realizes it...bit it is. That 140lbs guy comes against me, I don't care if he is bruce lee fast, when I get ahold of him, and I will, I am going to do things so nasty to him it would be NC17...and there is nothing he can do about it. You can be the toughest guy around but if that other guy lands a rocking surprise blow to the side of your head, you WILL go down, maybe not out cold but stunned and unable to react and they will finish you then. I find, over all, arm combat code well represents this.

Now...is flee janky...no, starting combat is. There is no reason why, if I start combat with you and you run I should not be able to follow instantly. Now, combat skills....is it realistic to not be able to just try disarm, disarm;disarm.......no, But, the delay is the current way to stop people from simply spamming it because there is no other negs. If it was me, I would get rid of the delays to all those skills, But I would replace them with serious negs. Disarm and fail, You cannot parry for 1-2 rounds, Bash and fail, you fall and cannot block or parry for 1-2 rounds, Kick and fail loss of next 2 rounds of attacks, Riposte and fail no parry for a round, hack and fail chance to break weapon...Oh wait, but there is more, Even if you succeed your defense at least should be slightly reduced for a round. Get rid of the delays and replace them, this allows greater tactics in combat. Get rid of the start combat delay other then for flee. If you start the fight you should be stuck for a good time.

Oh, and as to the stats.
AI agi or AI str....I would pick AGI. If I have a human fighter with AI agi and you have one with AI str, all other stats being ave for both...and both have 10 days played in the byn...I WILL DECIMATE YOU. Of course, I will not be using the same weapons, skills or tactic as I would if I had the AI str fighter........

Is it nice to have high str...yup, but Agi affects more things then str, for long term survival...take the agi.

[lostinspace]

My preference for survival is prioritize endurance. An extra 20-30 hp has been the difference between life and death many times, and the extra stun and move points give more time to escape before getting knocked out and more time to react to some poisons.

It doesn't help with offence, but with flee how it is you can almost always get away if you survive the first 2-3 rounds.

[Krath]

Meh, While I tend to usually agree with X-D, I have to disagree this time. Strength is far superior to agility, based on my experience, when it comes to long lived pcs.

[gotdamnmiracle]

I'm seeing a lot of  anecdotal evidence suggesting suicide for low roll characters and once you roll high to take very low to middling risks until you can play with the big boys. Additionally, it sounds like, all things equal many races will just be worse and will require so much more effort to raise themselves up to the point high-cap strength races start from.

Assuming only exceptional PCs are exceptional (from Brokkr's comment) what's the incentive to screw around with a poor PC (or an average or good one for that matter)? In the end you will have to work so much harder than the high roll dwarf in your squad to become useful, let alone not a liability.

[Lizzie]

I'm seeing a lot of  anecdotal evidence suggesting suicide for low roll characters and once you roll high to take very low to middling risks until you can play with the big boys. Additionally, it sounds like, all things equal many races will just be worse and will require so much more effort to raise themselves up to the point high-cap strength races start from.

Assuming only exceptional PCs are exceptional (from Brokkr's comment) what's the incentive to screw around with a poor PC (or an average or good one for that matter)? In the end you will have to work so much harder than the high roll dwarf in your squad to become useful, let alone not a liability.

Again - if you're rolling up a "poor" strength character, then you're not making a character with the primary goal to do well in combat.  There are a pretty wide variety of options that will net you better than "poor" almost every single time, with only a very unlucky random misfortune of the dice roll. Your stats are dependent in part on which options you pick during chargen, including prioritizing.

If you want to play the badass raider who can back up his claims with brute strength, pick a class, subclass, and race that supports that decision.

[gotdamnmiracle]

You're overlooking part of my question, Lizzie.

What's to stop me from suiciding over an average character when they're so much less than everything above them? Why shouldn't I dive off the shieldwall with a PC who's rolled good in every stat? If I want to be the best why should I settle for anything else?

[RogueGunslinger]

Because it is against the rules. Because this is a role-playing game first. I think strength should be toned down and stat rolls shouldn't be so random or widespread but let's not muddle the issue with poor arguments.

[Lizzie]

You're overlooking part of my question, Lizzie.

What's to stop me from suiciding over an average character when they're so much less than everything above them? Why shouldn't I dive off the shieldwall with a PC who's rolled good in every stat? If I want to be the best why should I settle for anything else?

Because no matter how awesome your stats are when you start up, there is already at least one PC, if not many, who can easily kill your brand new character right out of chargen. It's futile to think otherwise. If you're in it for the PK, strength is not, and will not, be the only deciding factor, and in some cases, won't be a factor at all.

[gotdamnmiracle]

Because it is against the rules. Because this is a role-playing game first. I think strength should be toned down and stat rolls shouldn't be so random or widespread but let's not muddle the issue with poor arguments.

I don't understand how this is a poor argument if the design allows for this, it's the optimal sterategy to be competitive, and there's not necessarily any way you can prove people are doing it as opposed to risk taking. I'd be willing to bet a large margin of people do this and it's why CGP was implemented. Yet that's a poor change if it can still be effectively done and is still a "good idea" due to how valuable a high strength rating actually is. If the rule isn't working you either change the rule or target the problem the rule stems from.

So that means effective ways of dealing with this that I see would be to:

1. Make suicide okay or give infinite rerolls (not advocating for this at all)

2. Change the (dramatic) effect certain stats have so it wouldn't be so incentivized to suicide and reroll

3. Hide all stat scores so investment can occur and players are less likely to rerollby the time they realize thier PC is useless.

4. Offer in game ways of raising stats permanently so that there is an alternative to rerolling.

5. Bring back merit based stat increases.

Until one of these occur you will continue to have problems arising from stat issues. These will be pertinent to every player who uses the combat system regardless of Pker, PKEer, or whatever.

Ever been to America? There's an opioid crisis there and last time I checked illegal use of opioids was against the rules, yet there's plenty of conversation about why it's happening and how it's happening to better deal with it. Would you suggest that they'd be better equipped to deal with the issue by "not muddling things" with discussion topics surrounding things "against the rules"?

Please share the insider info you seem to have with the rest of us, considering you understand which aspects are important and which are muddling.

[Brokkr]

it's the optimal sterategy to be competitive

Suiciding is typically fairly obvious.

Optimal sterategy (?) to get the most powerful character possible, and thus be competitve, is to get 3 karma, then play a sorcerer subguild.

You won't get to 3 karma if we see you suiciding.

Ergo, suiciding is not the optimal sterategy to be competitve.



In a more serious vein, there are plenty of people who have effective, long term characters with meh stats.  The best stat roll I have seen so far (which was an extreme tail situation) died within a couple of hours.

[RogueGunslinger]

The optimal strategy to be the most powerful, in my experience, is simply to survive the longest while garnering connections, allies, and skills. 

If all things are equal, or even slightly unequal, stats becomes an issue that should be addressed from a gameplay enjoyment and balance standpoint. Not because a bunch of people are supposedly suiciding to game the system. Honestly If someone wants good stats that badly, I say they can have them(also they could probably just spec-app for them, I've done it before).

But what they're losing in time and goodwill with the staff is, like Brokkr said, far more of a loss than they would get from an AI or two.

I really like your proposed ideas for changes. Except number 1, of course. I'd add flattening out the statrolls so AI and Poor are basically gone, and maybe de-randomizing rolls somewhat so that you have more of a say in how they're allocated at character generation.

[gotdamnmiracle]

I can agree with this. It could be possible I'm mistaking the chicken for the egg here, as my most influential and long lived characters also happen to be some fairly good rolls and I imagine that helped them to become as long lived as they were. I will admit though, it is anecdotal and others experience's may vary.

And I appreciate it. After reading through my comment it reads as pretty derogatory. I apologize if I came off that way. Perhaps I've been reading too much Hitchens? Thanks for remaining cool headed, RGS.

I'm surprised we don't have point allocation with some rolls on top of that, tbh.

[RogueGunslinger]

It's all good, I shouldn't have called your argument poor. That was unnecessarily inflammatory.

[Insigne]

it's the optimal sterategy to be competitive

Suiciding is typically fairly obvious.

Optimal sterategy (?) to get the most powerful character possible, and thus be competitve, is to get 3 karma, then play a sorcerer subguild.

You won't get to 3 karma if we see you suiciding.

Ergo, suiciding is not the optimal sterategy to be competitve.

In a more serious vein, there are plenty of people who have effective, long term characters with meh stats.  The best stat roll I have seen so far (which was an extreme tail situation) died within a couple of hours.

If players are consistently going to unrealistic lengths over something like stats (or even just seriously considering it), shouldn't the possibility that the stat system is part of the problem be considered?

I really like your proposed ideas for changes. Except number 1, of course. I'd add flattening out the statrolls so AI and Poor are basically gone, and maybe de-randomizing rolls somewhat so that you have more of a say in how they're allocated at character generation.

I'm surprised we don't have point allocation with some rolls on top of that, tbh.

+1

Several mechanics of the game are too heavily skewed towards one stat or another, like strength hugely affecting offense and inventory space being determined by agility alone. Maybe this could be adjusted by reducing how drastically stats can affect something and taking other factors into account (e.g. size of PC and types of objects in inventory).

[Nao]

It's not reasonable for strength to always trump skill the way it does. Two people fighting with rapiers? The one with greater skill should win most every time, regardless of how much of a beast the less skilled opponent is, because that is the way they work. Finesse. This isn't reflected in Arm's combat system.

You still have a good chance of dying if you go attack a lion with a spear, no matter how good you are.

However, the game doesn't really work like you describe it. If it did? You could never kill a dorf as a celf. But with a bit of combat experience? It's not just possible, but actually pretty easy.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

The optimal strategy to be the most powerful, in my experience, is simply to survive the longest while garnering connections, allies, and skills.

Abso-fucking-lutely the truth.

I'd add flattening out the statrolls so AI and Poor are basically gone ...

Fuuuck no! 

4. Offer in game ways of raising stats permanently so that there is an alternative to rerolling.

5. Bring back merit based stat increases.

I like both of these ideas very much. I'm not interested in the other three (even though I know the first one was sort of a joke! Hehe). I'm not sure what the merit thing you're talking about is, but I think I'm okay with it.

I like #4 the best, so I'll expound on my personal vision of such a thing. In every case, the chances of raising a stat are small, like 1/1k or so, and even less for frequent things like walking. So if you really need to see your stats rise, you have to put in the work, in game. And you'd be expected to RP it, so if staff felt like you were not RPing it enough (note that nobody expects you to emote all the time, but be real about it), they could delay your ability to learn for a while.

• 
  Strength/Endurance: Hard Labor jobs include salting, obsidian mining, glass mining, foraging stones, mining clay, dragging heavy loads, fighting with heavy loads WORN, not in inventory. I actually argue that we should be able to go back to the getting better at fighting with heavy loads WORN, not in inventory, too, but that's a different topic.
  
• 
  Agility: Possibly running, successful dodges against dangerous foes, climbing.
  
• 
  Wisdom: Uh .... drawing a blank here. I think maybe wisdom ought to just be what it is. After all, it goes up constantly from the time you first log into the game.
  

[Lizzie]

I still favor the point allocation system. Always did. Same with skill selection, by way of main class templates with 'extra' points to allocate, in substitution of the whole subclass system.

Example for point allocation system:

You roll up a human warrior/clothworker, the most generic combo I could think of. (I realize warrior is no longer a thing, this is all a hypothetical anyway)

As such, the fact that you're a warrior will automatically prioritize strength. So no matter what all your stats are, strength will get a natural +2 bonus at the very end. Humans will get no plus or minus, they are the default. Subclasses would get no bonus or penalty. The warrior class would also come with a coded guarantee to never get a "poor" in strength, but could still get a poor in other things.

You could random roll, and not allocate. If you do, here are the possible results:

Possible stats: poor, below average, average, good, very good, absolutely incredible No more extremely good, it devalues "average" too much.
Poor = 2% chance of showing up on any stat. No more than one stat getting it.
Below average = 10% chance, no more than 1 stat getting it.
Average = 40% chance, and any or all stats can get it.
Good = 32%, up to 2 stats getting it.
Very good = 12%, with up to 2
AI = 4%, with only one.

Math: 2+10+40+32+12+4=100 with that 2 on "poor" eliminated for warriors, and adding that 2 randomly to still equal 100% allocation.

OR - you can allocate. There would still be an RNG. Your character still would be locked out of getting a poor in strength. But you may now weigh the stats. You can go up or down as many as 5 points in any stat, as long as the end result of all allocated stat points combined equals 0.

So maybe you want strength to get an extra +5 bonus.
You want to make sure your agility has at least something in it, so you give it a +3
Wisdom, you'll take your chances.
Endurance, screw that, you'll wear better armor and ride a mount. -8


And NOW the dice rolls and the result will be random. Then it applies your allocated points, and then it adds another +2 to strength.

The only way your warrior character would end up with poor strength is if you allocated -negative- points to strength in custom allocation, AND the RNG decided that was where you'd get the "below average" stat, before the custom points were applied.

There's still a random roll, no matter which way you do it. But now, you have a better chance to weigh the priorities, in the manner you wish them to be weighed, AND there would be guarantee that one stat specific to your main class would never be poor unless you intentionally allocate it negative points.

A desert elf might also get a +2 in agility, automatically, no matter what, and their guarantee is that they'd never roll poor strength, because poor strength desert elf is almost unplayable (not entirely but almost). A half-giant would be guaranteed never to get poor wisdom, but would get a -2 penalty to the wisdom roll, otherwise, and a +2 to agility (since it makes zero sense for a humanoid with hands the size of watermelons to NOT be able to hold 5 twigs). And so on. Each class and race could have its own specific conditions, with humans being the default 'average' that has no penalties or bonuses.

This system would mean that you're much more likely to have all average stats. But it also means you will never have a poor in a stat specific to your main class, or race (or both), unless you intentionally allocate it as such.

[Brokkr]

You currently have no chance of getting poor in a stat unless you make choices that create that situation.