Strength

[Lizzie]

I'm neither happy nor unhappy about it. It has very little bearing on my game.

[Brokkr]

I am sure it was not age, so leaves only main class. Which IMO would be lame and NOT count as making the choice to create the situation since the docs do not tell you that it can.

Well, I can't see which character you meant, as I was referring to only the new classes, unless you saw it on a 2nd roll.  Note we have specifically decided not to give stat information on the classes, but it is somewhat logical, and so while you may be making an uninformed or poorly informed choice, it is still a choice.

That said, it was still age.  Wisdom is a bit wonky, and whereas there is a dice associated with a range, there is also a negative to wisdom based on age over the range most every PC is going to be in.  So effectively it has a max of max dice-agenegative.  Not that really matters, as it is just equivalent to have a slightly lower max that rolled dice would suggest, aside from the wonkiness related specifically to poor and AI stat indications.

[X-D]

Ah, Well, I am not complaining mind you, having played my share of low wis dwarves and HGs, a low wis human....Heh, gravy.

Still, you are saying that, for the most part, with the new classes, one needs to work a bit to get a poor in a stat?

[Heade]

It appears to me that no one is happy with the current system aside from staff and Heade, our local contrarian. That's bad.

Who speaks most often/loudest on the forums are generally people who are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs. So, the number of people speaking about this in a thread that represents a tiny fraction of the playerbase isn't necessarily representative of the number of players who feel one way or another about an issue.

Lots of players claim that they don't even get on the forums regularly.

If you wanted a realistic set of numbers to work from, you'd need to poll the playerbase IN GAME, using a non-optional poll that didn't let you log into your character until you answered. And even that will have a margin of error for people who just pick a random option to get past the question because they don't strongly care one way or another.

I also resent being called a "contrarian" in a general sense. There are plenty of situations where I agree with the public opinion, and plenty where I do not. Not being shy about the times when I am not may make things look that way, but it does not take into account the numerous threads I DON'T post in, because my point of view has already been made by someone else. I read every thread on the GDB that isn't in "Non-Armageddon Discussions". If I haven't posted in one of those threads, you can assume I either agree with the direction the thread is trending, don't care enough one way or the other to make a post, or think the idea being presented is so stupid that I couldn't fathom anyone entertaining it, so I don't waste my time.

[only_plays_tribals]

Two human dudes of equivalent skill, one having Absolutely Incredible strength and Average agility (dude A) versus one with Absolutely Incredible agility and Average strength (dude B) should be more comparable. It's true. "Super Agility Man" should get enough of a boost to landing a +45 dmg neck shots to compensate for "Holy-shit-it's-hercules" being able to +45 dmg his foot twice to victory. Maybe it works like that and I just can't tell because I can't compare skill levels, but it feels like it doesn't.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

generally I am happy...I just normally agree there is room for improvement.

+1

Two human dudes of equivalent skill, one having Absolutely Incredible strength and Average agility (dude A) versus one with Absolutely Incredible agility and Average strength (dude B) should be more comparable. It's true. "Super Agility Man" should get enough of a boost to landing a +45 dmg neck shots to compensate for "Holy-shit-it's-hercules" being able to +45 dmg his foot twice to victory.

+1

[number13]

Once upon a time, agility was the uber stat. Maybe things are a little out of wack now, but it was worse before, because agility is arguably the best non-combat stat. There's enough reasons to want a high dexterity score already, I think.

If anything Wisdom seems more like a dump stat, for non-spellcasters. Maybe it should figure a little more into Stun. And endurance could figure more into carry capacity.

[Heade]

There's enough reasons to want a high dexterity score already, I think.

Agreed. There is a lot of utility tied to agility.

[Dar]

I have to agree.

Before the guild changes, merchants had a use for high wisdom. Wisdom helped them with skinning/foraging/scanning/listening. But now there is genuinely no reason for an Artisan to have high wisdom. High endurance for stun/hp is paramount. High strength/agility for utility of carrying stuff around. Wisdom? Entirely irrelevant.

I dont agree with all those weird notions about elves having more strength, or whatever. But, I do think the impact each stat has on things should be reworked. Yes, agility is important in certain aspects. But I am of opinion, that each stat should have their own benefits and penalties. That each stat should be balanced, and it's pretty obviously not.

Is it an easy solution? Probably not. But please do not say that current stats are balanced and each stat equals the other in their own niche. It's just simply not true.

[gotdamnmiracle]

Heade, no reason to resent the comment. I was just calling it like it appeared. To not show any support for a single thing (by maybe not posting in a thread you'd normally agree with) and only speaking up when you have a problem with something? Seems kind of like a contrarian to me. Maybe if there were some construction to go alongside the poking of holes? I mean it just seems like bad practice to show up, say you hate something, and contribute nothing else.

But I'm okay if you don't agree with me. I suppose at the time I didn't realize how many people were so wishy-washy on the subject.

If you'd like I think we should  carry this on through PMs. I hate thread clutter and the threat of moderation over little stuff.

[Heade]

I mean it just seems like bad practice to show up, say you hate something, and contribute nothing else.

This generally isn't my MO on the things I post about. I tend to explain my positions, so simplifying that down to saying I "show up, say I hate something, and contribute nothing else" is disingenuous. And I didn't do that here. I simply said I like how stats currently work. And I've explained why previously in either this thread, or the one that spawned it.

If agility and strength were equally important to combat, with Agi giving a boost to hit critical locations in such a way that it was equal or near equal in damage output to high strength, then that would make agility king of all stats, because of the vast number of skills related to agility already (hide, sneak, lockpick, all crafting, ranged weapons, etc). Currently there are tradeoffs that are made in stat prioritization. It's obvious that's the case, or no one would care, right? I mean, if there weren't tradeoffs, we wouldn't be having this discussion, everyone would just prioritize strength and generally be happy with their character who could do everything. But that isn't the case. We're having this discussion because people want to do other stuff, that depends on other stats, and they become unhappy when their lower prioritized strength has a negative impact on their character's life.

I do see Dar's point on wisdom sort of being a dump stat at this point for artisans specifically. But artisans aren't the sole successor to Merchants. Also, we should bear in mind that wisdom is the key factor in skills like contact and barrier, which are useful to almost everyone. Some of the "merchant" classes still get skinning, scan, peek and watch. So, it does still have impact for other merchants, just not artisans. This appears designed to be a tradeoff of skills artisans make for being able to have all the crafting skills, but does end up making wisdom a "dump stat" for them if you completely ignore the effects of wisdom on skill gains.

If you'd like I think we should  carry this on through PMs. I hate thread clutter and the threat of moderation over little stuff.

I'd rather not. This isn't going to turn into a flame war in public, because I'm not that guy. So don't be that guy and I think we're good on moderation.

[Is Friday]

I experimented with an agility-focused combat PC (human) not too long ago. My results were surprising and helped flesh out my understanding of stats.

Based on my experience and research:
1.) You need a base level of strength to be competitive in combat. Having more after a certain point is nice to have, but not need to have.
2.) Your skills are easier to increase to a high level if you do not have high strength. You'll be better defensively overall in most scenarios and clans over time. This does not account for players who play a ton, of course, since players who are on 24/7 are abnormal for data. If you pour 100d into a character your skills will be abnormal regardless of build.
3.) Strength is unnecessary to kill PCs. (See: HELP ELVES, HELP POISONS.)
4.) Strength is less dominant now that we have more skills like Riposte available. You'll have to choose the correct guild for a low strength character, which is sort of the problem... but otherwise if you don't choose below 22 y/o you'll be fine.
5.) Most PCs die to the following scenarios:
   a.) Being tricked into being trapped.
   b.) Being victimized by unbeatable forces.
   c.) Becoming friends with the wrong people who betray them.
   d.) Random NPCs.
   e.) Poison.

In my experience: Strength has little bearing on PvP success in Armageddon. Politics, connections, and poisons are superior in every way. Strength is a red herring.

Now if you're talking about PvE? Yeah, having low strength sucks.

Solution:
Pick over 22 years old. Pick an appropriate guild for your PC. Supplement with two handed if necessary. Pick a guild or subguild with poison if you're afraid of low strength.

[number13]

In my experience: Strength has little bearing on PvP success in Armageddon. Politics, connections, and poisons are superior in every way. Strength is a red herring.

If you have half-giant strength, mul strength, high dwarf strength is it possible to kill a PC in two or three blows. Strength is not a red herring for PvP. See also, the dwarves that were coming out of the Gaj spawn area to attack people at the bar. They did get kills.

[Is Friday]

If those dwarves had been elves with terradin they'd have the same or better kill ratio. Most PCs are unprepared for combat, period. Regardless of what attacks them--be it a high strength PC or a low strength poison bearer.

Muls and half-giants are behind a karma wall and restricted rules for RP.

Dwarves should be behind a karma wall as well, but that's a different discussion. I've always been of the opinion that HGs should be removed and dwarves need to be restricted karma roles.

[Cind]

I always thought that dwarves being zero karma was a way for staff to figure out who was ready to get their first one or two points of karma, since they both don't require karma but require something more from the player than Get Strong. A lot of people play them as humans with an obsession, which is fine since I feel docs don't elaborate a lot beyond that, but yeah, the strength of a newbie dwarf who doesn't know not to attack bar-sitters is pretty scary. The type of characters I like to play, they usually get wrecked by an untrained mul in one or two hits, except for one who was trained with a shield and was lucky enough to be wielding one.

The longer you play around dwarves, or as a dwarf, with humans or god forbid half-elves to compare, the greater the disparity seems, I think, and I've said this before, but dwarves being 'almost immune' to poison and magick seems like a pair of really unfair traits. Apart from a freaking Arena event, that's how people usually try to kill a high-strength problem. It seems to me like humans and dwarves are the ones who live the longest, because everyone plays humans, and dwarves can become really difficult to kill. If anything, elves should have gotten those immunity traits--- it can be really hard to make an elf that lasts a RL year.

[number13]

If anything, elves should have gotten those immunity traits--- it can be really hard to make an elf that lasts a RL year.

Not that the game is meant to be 'balanced', but that would be a fun way to balance a c-elf versus a d-elf. The D-elves might get the superior everything else, but c-elf have such shitty lives that they've become practically immune to toxic crap over generations of selection. That would be some awesome flavor.