Drawing the short straw

[Kavrick]

I tend to talk about coded power because it's one of the few things you can talk about on the forums. I can't really talk about ic roleplay stuff because that would be breaking the rules. Generally I dislike suiciding low-statted characters and I do play them out. I know sometimes I can come across in a certain way and I do apologize that I have a bit of a 'resting bitch tone' in the way I type. I do enjoy Armageddon a whole bunch, it's why I'm more passionate about seeking out improvements in a way that's good for the game.

Clearly stats have people split down the middle, some people like the way the game is, and some people think it could be a little less random. I'll admit, I get a bit of a high when I roll a character with super good stats, and I can feel it. But I think if you added some optional systems, it would make both sides happy. I'm not really a fan of trying to force people to play the game the way I think it should be played so I try to pursue recommendations that appeal to both sides.

[Coda]

We're not actually supposed to discuss code much.  We're supposed to be using this forum to chat about the roleplay aspects, or discuss the game broadly.  Not specific things, but generalized roleplaying topics.  One of the issues of talking about code things, like stats, is that humans are absolutely dogshit at probability and we're prone to bias.  You see it, at times, in roleplay chat (someone will see a Krathi cast a fireball his second time on thar character at 20 days played and suddenly complain that gicks are too common, not remembering the other 19 days and 23.5 hours he spent not seeing magick), but bias becomes insane when it's you trying to interpret obfuscated code via the actions of a character in a world with as many variables as there are in the game.

What you're asking for is a salve to soothe a hurt that you are only imagining exists.  I'm not saying stats don't matter (nobody has said that, not once) I'm just saying that they don't matter anywhere near as much as the way that they're talked about suggests except at the very extreme ends of the spectrum.

And even then, it's ok to not be the strongest, fastest, smartest, or toughest.  The game is not code vs. code, it's a roleplaying game.  If you're not having fun until  you're skillmaxxed on a high stat character then you're denying yourself some really fun underdog/training montage/etc. roleplay, and that's a shame because having had an AI strength, exceptional agi, exceptional endurance combat character, the meat of the game is in the things you do with others.  If you want equalized stats for mob bashing, Aardwolf is easy to find - I sometimes hop on there to bash mobs because that's fun, it's just not why I log into Armageddon.

I hope none of that felt like an attack, it isn't meant to be, it's just me trying to help you see that the focus on it is creating negative feelings based on misunderstandings.  You'd have more fun if you just rolled with it, it's just a game in the end.

[Kavrick]

I don't mean literally about code, but the mechanics of the game. I don't feel like it's an attack, but you did make something personal when it didn't really need to be. I never mentioned anything about being the strongest or whatever, in fact I've never partaken in pvp even once in my time playing. I also think saying that it's an issue that I'm only 'imagining' is rather dismissive, especially when it factually does exist and I'm not the only one who thinks stats are too random. I also think the assumption that because I care about the mechanics in a game with mechanics, that I don't care about roleplay is a little negative in an unnecessary way. All of my characters have been extremely roleplay intensive and I'm far from a power gamer.

[Coda]

I'm glad you focus on the roleplay - I guess, what I'm trying to say is that there is a specific subculture of Armageddon player who cares far, far too deeply about the words next to their skills and in their score.  And the way that they're discussed grants them an outsized importance and leads to people worrying about them.  It, especially, leads newer players to worrying about them because they don't understand that the people making those claims are being hyperbolic when they said you should suicide a fighter with average human agility or whatever else.

This thread is a perfect example - perfecto asked if anyone else had seen stat rolls be lower than usual because they had a run of bad luck, and the thread has morphed into people complaining about randomized stats because they've been led to believe that having a low stat or two means that your character is dogshit.  You, by your own admission, haven't even engaged in pvp - the time when differences in stats can (not do, can) matter the most - and yet the way you talk about them seems to suggest a deep and certain knowledge of the way that stats affect a character.

Take a step back.  They don't matter as much as you think.  Don't stress so much, it's just a game.

[Kavrick]

So I wrote out a big thing that I realized probably wouldn't have been particularly productive but I just want to drop this in. The things I love about Armageddon; The roleplay, the characters, the events and the culture, are generally things that I can't really talk about, which makes me come across as more negatively-focused than I actually am. I'd love to talk about all of the things I love about Armageddon, I'm just not allowed because of the ic/ooc rules, and I would like to say for the record that I've been having a lot of fun on Armageddon recently, both on characters with bad stats and good stats.

I just came to a thread about stats to talk about stats, I don't think It's that huge of a deal and I do think you're reading into it a tad bit too much. My conversation about Gicks in the other thread is more about the roleplay side of gicks and stuff like hemotes and hiding being a gick, rather than the mechanical focus of magic. Mechanics enable roleplay, I don't think you can really only look at roleplay or mechanics in a vacuum with Armageddon, both matter. I mostly care about stats/skills because the stats/skills of my character do decide what I can and can't do. You know what one of my favorite things to do in Armageddon is? Exploration. How do you explore? Well you need to be good at stuff like climbing, riding, fighting, all so you can explore without dying. I don't think it's fair to say these things don't matter when they do.

[Coda]

You can talk about those things! Talk about them generally, talk about them positively, talk about having had fun - especially as you play longer, you'll be able to reminisce and chat even more freely.  Mechanics and roleplay are certainly entwined - but your exploration character would do better joining a group that explores, and roleplaying through training, etc. and going out with buddies.  You'll also survive better, while having more fun.

Also, again, nobody has ever said they don't matter.  You're attacking a strawman when you do that.  All they've said is that the outsized focus on them is at odds with how much they actually end up affecting the things you want to do.  I've explored almost corner of the Known with a character people would consider a throw-away based on stats alone.  You can too, if you get over the hump of believing them to be as important as the way you frame the conversation makes them out to be.

[Kavrick]

I agree, I don't really have much to argue here. I think it's easy to fall into that sort of passionate drivel when you feel strongly about something. I would like to say as a european player (I'm up far too late right now) It's a little harder to find groups to do stuff with, but I understand the sentiment. Honestly more 'exploration' based groups in game would be a lot of fun, especially with hunter slots being limited but lots of people playing hunter-types, a sort of 'wayfinder' house or something that gathers information and maps places out could be an interesting concept. (Super off-topic I know, it just sounded like a cool idea).

Thanks for being level headed about it, I appreciate being able to just talk about something without things getting too heated.

[Jimpka_Moss]

These replies seem really close together.

I've paid so little attention to stats that I can't quite remember if I've had good rolls or bad rolls. I don't prioritize, because based on the code I've seen, that gives the best range of results, so maybe it's my way of doing things.

Maybe a change could be put in, for all those talking about it, but any changes I see, I'd like to see tempered with keeping the system we have now, and any sort of point buy system be balanced alongside it, something comparative and not always objectively better. If that's clear, idk.

Lastly, I am extremely in favor of knowing my stats beforehand. I would rather play a char with poor strength, and have his description match that, then play one and have people go 'wtf, you're the muscular guy, why can't you pick up that stick', and me have to go 'my back, dude'.

[Kavrick]

These replies seem really close together.

I've paid so little attention to stats that I can't quite remember if I've had good rolls or bad rolls. I don't prioritize, because based on the code I've seen, that gives the best range of results, so maybe it's my way of doing things.

Maybe a change could be put in, for all those talking about it, but any changes I see, I'd like to see tempered with keeping the system we have now, and any sort of point buy system be balanced alongside it, something comparative and not always objectively better. If that's clear, idk.

Lastly, I am extremely in favor of knowing my stats beforehand. I would rather play a char with poor strength, and have his description match that, then play one and have people go 'wtf, you're the muscular guy, why can't you pick up that stick', and me have to go 'my back, dude'.

Honestly on the same note of seeing your stats, would be cool for seeing your stats while doing all-random rather than prioritised, would help me decide what I want my character to be if I know what his strengths/weaknesses are.

[Master Color]

It's a system that rewards players who game it. You want better roleplay? Start reworking systems that create bad incentives like this.

That's enough reason to change it.

[Tuannon]

If we are going to move away from bad stat roles and start critiquing roleplay I think this thread no longer serves its intended purpose.

[Coda]

I agree, I don't really have much to argue here. I think it's easy to fall into that sort of passionate drivel when you feel strongly about something. I would like to say as a european player (I'm up far too late right now) It's a little harder to find groups to do stuff with, but I understand the sentiment. Honestly more 'exploration' based groups in game would be a lot of fun, especially with hunter slots being limited but lots of people playing hunter-types, a sort of 'wayfinder' house or something that gathers information and maps places out could be an interesting concept. (Super off-topic I know, it just sounded like a cool idea).

Thanks for being level headed about it, I appreciate being able to just talk about something without things getting too heated.

That's fair - I'm glad I was able to convey what I was trying to say without coming across as a jerk, it's painfully easy to come across like an asshole in text.  I just like this dumb game and want other people to like it for the same reasons I do. 

[Yelinak]

This is going to sound passive aggressive, but still waiting on people to decide whether stats are so impactful that making them more balanced would 'ruin' the game, or that stats matter so little that they shouldn't be changed. Although for the latter, if stats really don't have such a big impact, making it so players have more control over them wouldn't be a big deal.

Because stats don't matter near as much as you've been led to believe it's likely not worth the effort of making the change.

This simply isn't true. Stats have a huge impact on almost all combat and skill rolls. Having great stats will absolutely make your character more successful and longer-lived, assuming you play in a way that includes coded abilities and a chance of dying. Having crap stats will make you noticeably worse at what you do and you'll almost certainly die sooner. In some edge cases, the difference can be particularly insane.

(I believe) the difference between average and exceptional human endurance is about 30 health and stun. That's a very significant amount. Having high endurance will almost certainly make your character survive things, probably multiple times throughout their life, that would have killed a character without high endurance.

(I believe) agility skills happen to be particularly reliant on high levels in order to be reliable. It can be the difference between being easily detectable by anyone with master scan, and being literally impossible to detect by anybody at all. It can be the difference between having, say, a 10% chance per room for sneak to fail, or that your sneak literally cannot fail. It can make your subclass stealth skills reach no-fail levels in the right environment. Agility also affects all kinds of combat things, most notably attack speed, success chance of many combat abilities, and ranged weapon accuracy.

For strength, the gulf in damage is somewhat less now that the stat's impact on damage has been nerfed, but what was taken away from strength was simply pushed onto agility's plate instead, so it changes nothing in terms of the impact stats have. Even after this change, the damage output of the high-strength character is easily about 50% higher. Fifty percent more damage per swing. After the nerf. Before that, it was more like double damage.

With exceptional wisdom, you can raise your skills much faster than someone with middling wisdom. I mean easily three times faster, possibly four. Its effects on scan basically work the same way as agility's effects on hide,  so it determines whether or not you can detect people. For a magicker, it represents approximately as big a difference in mana as endurance does for health/stun.

And that's just for human characters whose stat ranges are more modest compared to other races, although it bears saying that it's kind of unlikely that anyone will play an elf character with middling agility that cares about their stealth skills, or a dwarf with middling strength in a combat role.

While you can usually trust that you'll get a pretty high roll in the stat that you prioritized first, the thing that really determines your character's future is what they get in their second and third priorities. If you make an infiltrator and prioritize agility, you're very likely to get exceptional or even absolutely incredible; but if you then get good strength and average endurance, that's okay but not particularly great. Meanwhile, you could also have landed extremely good in both of those stats. Suddenly you've got an insanely powerful character that is infinitely superior to the good+average guy. Or you could get screwed over with such low rolls that you saddle yourself with a damage penalty and 88 health. And that's for life. You can't go to the gym and bulk up.

Do you really think that doesn't have a big influence on how effective your character is? Trust me, it has an enormous impact, and it doesn't diminish with higher skills. On the contrary, contests between characters of high skill are often determined by stats because they're the main point of variance between characters whose skills are likely capped at the same general levels.

A character's total stat aggregate can vary by a factor of two. One character can have double the total stat points of another. While that degree of variance is highly improbable, it's not that unusual to see differences of 50%. How often do you enter the game with 'very good, above average, above average, poor' and then reroll into 'exceptional, extremely good, very good, above average'? Pretty regularly. And the difference in raw power between those two statrolls is absolutely going to define your character.

[Dracul]

The only thing I like about stats is that they change and eventually decay with age.

[Jarvis]

Almost wish we could get the stats of our next character before we write them.  So you make a buff warrior or write a average person.

Yes please to this. That or/and a point-buy system that works like in D&D. Aka you get control over your stats but you can't go over 18 and you must have one of the stats that's a dump. I always get eeeeeeeeh when writing a character because I never know if the core thing I'm going for is going to get buggered by the roll.

That or still have them be entirely random but let us assign the rolls.

Edit: That and what's up with age code? I FEEL like if I make a young character they will never age to the potential that I could have had if I made a 24-26 year old char. Admittedly I've never played that long from 16 years old up, but whenever I do try I get the stats of a geriatric man. Its very odd that the world tells you that a 16 year old is a fully matured man and then also have them spawn with the constitution of the old golden grahams cereal bar left in your moms car

[Coda]

A character's total stat aggregate can vary by a factor of two. One character can have double the total stat points of another. While that degree of variance is highly improbable, it's not that unusual to see differences of 50%. How often do you enter the game with 'very good, above average, above average, poor' and then reroll into 'exceptional, extremely good, very good, above average'? Pretty regularly. And the difference in raw power between those two statrolls is absolutely going to define your character.

Your likely somewhat incorrect statements about actual code values for skill boosts aside, I'd love it if we could focus on the last bit of this paragraph.

You can, based on stats alone be quite a bit stronger with excep/eg/vg/aa than you would be with vg/aa/aa/poor.  That said.. that's definitely not 'double the total stat points', it's 'a bit of a bump' - and the world exists with a wide variety of things that could change the outcome of a fight.  You are correct, if we rolled in two characters of the same race, age, class/subclass, and stat placement, then did nothing with them except put them in a room aggro with each other, the higher statted character would win.  No one has ever disputed that.

It seems that, you consider vg/aa/aa/poor to be an unplayable.  I've had characters with a similar spread, and they were fun.  I played the role.  I had a good time.  I moved on to a new character when they died. 

And, as you yourself pointed out, you reroll into a higher set of stats quite regularly.


:edited by Moderator:

[Yelinak]

It doesn't really make sense to place the description stage after the statroll, or else you'd need two stages of approval. First you'd have to apply for a character, get it approved, look at your stats; and then put in a description, get that approved, and finally commence into the game. That won't work.

I'm frankly surprised that this is suggested every time this discussion comes up. You cannot show statrolls before the character application is submitted, else you can just reroll over and over; and you cannot expect a two-stage approval process where you first put in for the right to play a character, get accepted, then look at your stats, and then write a description that requires another layer of staff review. I have to say that this is such a level of common sense that it shouldn't be suggested every time this subject re-emerges. It doesn't make sense at all.

Just fix the statrolling system already, would you? It's 2023, not 1996.

:edited by moderator:

[Yelinak]

A character's total stat aggregate can vary by a factor of two. One character can have double the total stat points of another. While that degree of variance is highly improbable, it's not that unusual to see differences of 50%. How often do you enter the game with 'very good, above average, above average, poor' and then reroll into 'exceptional, extremely good, very good, above average'? Pretty regularly. And the difference in raw power between those two statrolls is absolutely going to define your character.

You can, based on stats alone be quite a bit stronger with excep/eg/vg/aa than you would be with vg/aa/aa/poor.  That said.. that's definitely not 'double the total stat points', it's 'a bit of a bump' - and the world exists with a wide variety of things that could change the outcome of a fight.  You are correct, if we rolled in two characters of the same race, age, class/subclass, and stat placement, then did nothing with them except put them in a room aggro with each other, the higher statted character would win.  No one has ever disputed that.

It seems that, you consider vg/aa/aa/poor to be an unplayabled.  I've had characters with a similar spread, and they were fun.  I played the role.  I had a good time.  I moved on to a new character when they died. 

And, as you yourself pointed out, you reroll into a higher set of stats quite regularly.

:edited by Moderator:

Let's begin where I carefully pointed out that a full 100% difference of character stats is so statistically improbable that it rarely happens. It's just the full potential of the system's variance. You could roll EX/EX/EX/EX or P/P/P/P. It is mechanically possible. What's more likely is a swing of about 50% from one roll to the next. That's not unusual at all. The EX/EG/VG/AA vs. VG/AA/AA/P comparison represents the 50% spread that is relatively common.

But where do we arrive at the "if we placed them in some omegatwink grindroom simulation" fallacy? That has never been part of the argument. That is brought forth in bad faith.

No, the highest-statted character will not always win. A mekillot can bite you on the head and roll 20 on its 1d20+15 damage dice, or whatever it has, and subsequently deal enough damage to kill even the EG END PC. Or One-Eye Amos can backstab you for 110 damage when you have 109 hit points and it gets the job done. Captain Fuckface of the AoD might not spot you with his 'very good wisdom' scan even though your 'above average agility' infiltrator hide leaves him with a 5% chance to do so, and then you evaded detection.



:edited by Moderator:

[Armaddict]

Stats are important.  But they are not important enough to ruin characters over.  They are typically more powerful in the early game than the 'end game' of a character.  Skills > stats in terms of impact on efficacy in -most- situations (not all).

I think the majority of people who take an adversarial position against things of this nature do it mostly as a kneejerk against the slide towards controllable metagaming or maximization.  Not that they necessarily attribute it TO the person making the proposition or people who promote it, but just that the emphasis in design towards enabling such methods becomes like a 'siren call' to very capable roleplayers to move in that general direction.  We -have- seen that behavior in the change to make skill levels visible.  There was a definite drift of behaviors over time in light of that information becoming accessible and readily available.  This is not a statement to demonize that.

All that being said, I do -not- have issues with stats being known prior to description writing so that you can match up backgrounds and descriptions.  I do -not- have issue with some sort of control over stats, insofar as embracing randomness remains truly random (i.e. I believe you -should- be able to choose some stats, but that the total 'stat points' will be lower than some decent percentage of random rolls, albeit assigned in your optimal way).

I believe the demon here is not controllable stats, nor knowledge of those stats, but movement towards the overall upward trend OF stats to make lower stats more and more punishing.  Lower rolls are necessary to keep exceptionalism exceptional, and it's hard to get people to -choose- lower rolls, and it's a feel good to see characters adapt and embrace their strengths and weaknesses that are present in ways they themselves would not have chosen.

I think the concerns in this thread are valid as far as knowledge of rolls and character creation.  But I don't think it's very productive OR accurate to try and assign some uber-negative quality to everyone who embraces different facets of different stat systems than you do.

:edited by Moderator:

[Master Color]

If we are going to move away from bad stat roles and start critiquing roleplay I think this thread no longer serves its intended purpose.

This is not a roleplay critique. I'm talking about incentive structures not individual players.

[Coda]

My point, and it has been my point this entire time, is that your character is more than their statblock.  Your character's gear, skills, friendships, hopes, and dreams all contribute to who they are and what they can do.  (To me,) this hyperfocus on stats is ridiculous, gamey, and boring.  If we had arrays, or point-buy, we'd devolve into a game with 'builds' that would get passed around the same way the code leak did.  And then we'd see a meta develop, like this was League of Legends.  And that sounds awful to me.

No, the highest-statted character will not always win. A mekillot can bite you on the head and roll EDITEDor whatever it has, and subsequently deal enough damage to kill even the EG END PC. Or One-Eye Amos can backstab you for 110 damage when you have 109 hit points and it gets the job done. Captain Fuckface of the AoD might not spot you with his 'very good wisdom' scan even though your 'above average agility' infiltrator hide leaves him with a EDITED to do so, and then you evaded detection. But how can you possibly deny that stats could have totally changed these outcomes?

Perhaps, in this role playing game, where you're playing a human who stands between 5 and 7 feet tall, you should be afraid of the building sized superpredator.  Perhaps, it's ok that you don't have perfectly minmaxxed stat blocks that allow you to edge out a solo victory against megafauna.  Perhaps you should've poisoned it with arrows, and been part of a hunting crew that includes giants, who are much tougher than humans, to take the hits for you, as they do in the lore. 

Perhaps people die, regularly, from a single well placed knife attack.  Perhaps the key here is to play a character and deal with the fact that, yes, One Eyed Amos is a very skilled assassin who could end your character.  Perhaps, it's ok if he does, because one of the true constants in Armageddon is that your character will die.  The game is not won by beating everything or killing the most mobs or whatever else, it's an active process where you build and tell stories together with other people – staff and players – in order to have fun within that.  Sometimes your role is Badass.  Sometimes your role is Murdered Person.  Sometimes your role is to get your ass kicked, and go on a Rocky-style sparring montage over the next bit of time, interacting with people as an embarrassed underdog before your eventual victory.  Sometimes you just hide and outlive the fucker who beat you down, then fuck their girlfriend after they die. 

Stats can change the outcome.  Again, nobody has said otherwise.  Stat variance allows for changed outcomes and that's why they're important to me.  If a Meta develops, and Builds come together, then the game is more 'solved' – you always take the agi-focus array on your thieves because you know it beats anything but a wis-focus array at better than advanced stealth.  You always take the strength-end array on your dwarf Fighters because of the racial bonuses/penalties giving you a 7.34% chance of having 10 more hp or whatever it would end up being.  It homogenizes everything and makes the game boring. 

In the end, there are some different views on the game.  One group wants to have The Perfect Stats and Mastered Skills. That group wants to know they have perfect stealth, and wants to know what breakpoints allow them to solo which megafauna, and wants to always Be The Best.  The other group wants to tell stories.  They don't mind getting caught sometimes on their thieves, because thieves sometimes get caught. They don't mind having to type 'flee' when a creature the size of a three story building chunks them for 60% of their hitpoints, because sometimes hunters are at risk from the things that they're hunting. 

I'm in the second camp.  I'm not claiming you're in the first, but the framing you use and the way you post suggests it, so it would be an easy assumption to make.  I post because I like this dumb nerd game.  I like it for its randomness and its violence and its risk.  People who declare that death ruins the 20 days of playtime they put into a character are missing the point.  You got  480 hours of entertainment off that character, for free.  You probably have a fun story or two, and remember other characters you interacted with fondly.  Armageddon is a TT-simulating Roguelike with roleplay.  And I'd like to preserve that, not create Metas and Builds.


All that aside, I'd 100% love it if we had our two blocks of stats (regular and reroll) for our next character rolled, especially as someone who always does full random.  I do dislike descing in the buff, muscular guy and ending up with above average strength.  Feels silly.

:edited by Moderator:

[Riev]

Stop making assumptions about other people based on text on a general internet forum.
Stop positing that your opinions are the only ones that matter.
Stop demonizing other players who prefer to have a different experience than yours and/or that your play experience is the only one that matters.
Stop posting "what ifs" and "This probably happens" scenarios. You are attacking fellow players when you do this, purposefully or not.

Do continue posting about your own experiences, without using them to color other peoples.
Do try to argue the point, and not belabor it.

[mansa]

If we are going to move away from bad stat roles and start critiquing roleplay I think this thread no longer serves its intended purpose.

I've locked the thread and started editing out the personal attacks.
I've unlocked the thread.  It's never productive when argument structure meta commentary is used in an anonymous text-based online forum.

[Fredd]

My opinion on the matter:

I like randomizing.

But I hate rolling shit rolls when I get a Rolecall or an App.

If I app a Byn sergeant and I roll crap stats, that hurts you know? I'de be up for letting RC's and App's get 3 rerolls and choose the best one, or something.

This would likely help staff have to set up less Byn Sarges, Templars, Militia/Legion Sergeants, and other combaty roles that get called on. While not changing the game to much.

My common sense argument for this is: The Characters being tapped for their role are supposed to come from a wide net cast into the org the app is for. They should be pulling the best they have available. So it would stand to reason these folks would likely be at the higher end of the stat spectrum.

This would likely kick up the number of apps for said roles too.

[Riev]

If I point buy, its because I know I want this character to get to low Exceptional [stat] and I'm willing to sacrifice having shit wisdom or poor agility/etc to do it. A fighter using agility more than strength comes to mind, and wanting to ensure you don't get 'screwed' with an "above average" strength roll.

If I random, I don't care about the exact physical attributes and/or I am hoping to get something really stellar. A regular Bynner, a Raider, something that kind of needs all the stats or at least just a prioritized list. A high chance of having better overall stats but not distributed how I'd prefer.



In short: Stats matter in the first 5days played on a character, and the last 10 seconds. Its important to have them set at what you're expecting for the role. Also as a note: If you let me see stats BEFORE I create a character you can be SURE I'm save scumming.