While I like the recent of implementation that changes stat scores by age and I don't mind the stat-ordering system... I still don' like the way stats are decided in this game.
I don't like the idea that a few random rolls have such a significant impact on the performance and survivability of my character. I also don't like the idea that characters with less expieriance beneath their belts might eventually eclipse my character because they got a better roll. I also don't think it makes sense that there is an arbitrary cap on the amount my stats can be increased by rp. I was told by staff that I can't raise them past 'good'. (It'd be great if staff could weigh in on this.)
So, what I would like to see is a reversal of these systems. Rewarding players for rp and not for luck.
I think the random range of stats available at character creation should be shortened. Maybe a range of something like 'average' to 'very good'. This would allow some variability to character performance without rewarding them/punishing them too much for a few random rolls.
Secondly, I think there should be a higher cap for stat increases through rp. By no means, should this be easy. But I think that if my character wanted exceptional strength badly enough and had time (five years?) to train, then I think it should be in his grasp.
I also wouldn't be against awesome stat-scores by special-app either.
Thoughts anyone?
I agree.
Some players say that stats don't matter once you get skilled.
They're wrong.
It is disheartening when you get a bad roll. For example, if a character of mine ends up with bad wisdom, I'll know for the life of that PC that I'm putting in more of my Real Life Time to get him to improve at what he does than I would have had to if he'd gotten a better roll. It's even more disheartening when you realize that your rolls were determined by a computer in what was probably less than a fraction of a second.
I'm not too familiar with the new automatic stat aging system, but maybe that might help a little.
And I agree with Yam and Jingo that stats are immensely important, perhaps more than they should ideally be.
Maybe increasing the number of stat steps and heavily biasing the rolls towards the average might help level the playing field a bit?
Quote from: Yam on September 07, 2008, 03:04:28 AM
I agree.
Some players say that stats don't matter once you get skilled.
They're wrong.
OMG STATS DON'T MATTER YOU FUCKING TWINK
(Yeah, I agree.)
Well. Partially I understand why there is a barrier to how high you can raise your stat through RP. I mean, there are players out there who've been around for 2+ years. Even with a 'very' busy life. They would've had ample amount of time of get all of their stats to Absolutely Incredible. And then ... get this, they'd be absolutely incredible!
One stat being so high, is a 'talent' for a person. Something that will make him remarkable in that particular area. All of them ... and he's a demi god.
At the same time it 'IS' disheartening to roll a low rank. It is 'very' disheartening to witness a person who is ... amazingly idiotic in various non impressive ways, be preferred to a man who's sharp and interesting, but is low skilled or got some debilitating low rolled stat.
I wouldnt mind stats being equal for everyone. And then allow some method of improving it, that does not involve spamming. Say, a person can choose the order of his stats, but together, they are all the same. And then as years pass, he has the chance of improving some amount through roleplay. Depending on where the gameplay takes him, he'll do different things, for different stats. Or if it's irrelevent, then ... he wont.
I my experience. Rolling a poor endurance stat, was 'very' fun to do. Had to roleplay a sickness, all sorts of things. Rolling a poor 'strength' stat as a fighting character. Is not fun at all, it makes things ... impossible. I never rolled a poor 'wisdom' stat, but if I did, I would given him a rl week tops, to land a role where skills do not matter. And if he failed, store him.
As far as I can tell, the automatic stat aging system doesn't make much of a difference at all. I had a PC that started at young, and lived (owing to mine leaving Arm for more than a year before returning) about 19 and a half game years, ending up towards the end of the adult spectrum for that race.
When the new aging code kicked in, my stats remained identical, except agility dropped. I thought it strange, but was told it was WAD, so moved on.
So I would caution people against reading too much into or expecting too much from the system.
From my experience, whatever it raises is so minutely fractional, that it is a good chance your stat descriptor will stay the exact same, even going from young to mature. Though it's easier to tell if something moved however fractional, with the endurance stat, and that wasn't the case.
Secondly, I suspect that if you made a character today, and kept them alive until Arm 2.0 opened, you would not have lived long enough to see any change, except perhaps, your agility dropping down if you began as young. That seems the most noticable shift.
Quote from: Yam on September 07, 2008, 03:04:28 AM
I agree.
Some players say that stats don't matter once you get skilled.
They're wrong.
Yes, but the significance of stats is very small compared to roleplay and skills.
It was brought up before in the reborn thread about starting gear, that maybe in the Hall of Kings you would be given a certain about of coins with which you could 'buy' skills instead of it being a random roll. That way you could set up your character the way you wrote it instead of writing up a Hercules character and geting Merlyn stats, or visa versa.
A mage would buy the minimum strength he would need, then spend the rest of his 'stat money' on wisdom, a merchant would balance wisdom and agility after s/he bought how ever little strength and endurance s/he needed.
Random roles are like having a kid in real life, you never really know what their strengths and weaknesses are going to be, BUT in Armageddon, you have already decided what strength and weaknesses he grew up with by choosing his guild and subguild. A clumsy person (low agility) would have never survived in Zalanthas had he chosen to spend his life as a merchant, for example.
I guess I'm the only one who likes randomly decided stats...
You're not the only one.
I just don't have a comprehensive response as to why. I just like that you don't know what you'll get and not everyone is badass.
Random stats are way better. It helps keep the game dynamic and unpredictable. Sure it's a pain to have a char concept you were excited about get blunted by a shitty roll but in the end the pros of the current system outweigh the cons, imho.
I do like random stats. I seem to have always been very lucky with my stat
rolls, and the few times I haven't been, I have always enjoyed the quirks that
I developed to compensate for them in RP. I had a merchant when I first
started that I have mentioned before, that could only hold three items... I
RPed him as an alcoholic who only used his "newbie" crafting recipes, no
matter how good he got, and he spent all his coin in the Gaj.
I enjoyed the hello out of it, too!
Another think that might help keep players from getting stats that make it
difficult to RP a character that they have written, while still keeping the rolls
random: Lower the total skill point available across all four stats, the award
"bonuses" depending on guild choice: strength/agility for warrior, agility/wisdom
for merchant, agility/endurance or agility/strength for ranger, etc.
The odds would still be random, but you would be less likely to roll an
"unplayable" charecter.
I can emphasize with a lot of what you cats are saying.
I played a character with crappy stats for six real-life months, and hated every day of it. I sunk hour after hour into a character who, even when he died, was still much weaker than noobs who were starting fresh. That being said, one of my favorite features is how "unfair" the stat system is. Much like real life, some people walk around and accomplish things effortlessly, while the rest of us struggle to get by, mostly based on our stats.
Obviously, I'm not in favor of forcing people to play unplayable characters or weaklings or anything.
I do think that playing a weakling every once in a while is good for you.
Agree? Disagree?
Quote from: touringCompl3t3 on September 07, 2008, 11:08:14 AM
Agree? Disagree?
I agree. They are a very nice change of pace.
To reword something I said earlier to add to what you said, IRL, you life is based
on your stats from the beginning. IG, you have no clue what your stats are until
after you have already written your background (lived half your life).
Perhaps the staff would give us the option of rewriting our background, if the
stats are in total contrast of what we had written. Never though of it, so I have
never tried.
The most powerful, long-lived, and notable character I've played here in my few years of arming had pretty ugly stats. He ended up in combat situations all the freaking time, but usually it was how I played him that kept him alive, not the stats behind him.
That being said, poor strength can be rather debilitating in a role. Sure being a weak warrior can be fun, but that's when I think of weak as avg, blw avg. Being so tender as to not be able to carry anything bigger than a knife sucks.
Wisdom in my opinion can be overcome, if you just live long enough and work some training into your routine.
Quote from: BuNutzCola on September 07, 2008, 11:36:26 AM
Wisdom in my opinion can be overcome, if you just live long enough and work some training into your routine.
HAHA! No kidding, my favorite character was a dwarf with below average
wisdom... Talk about a learning curve.
I like randomly assigned stats. I like the dynamic they give my characters and the game. Once upon a time I had a character (warrior character) with 'poor' wisdom. I probably did learn slower than the rest of the characters he was chumming with, but by the time he died he still kicked ass. The only thing I found completely unplayable was poor dexterity on a half-giant. He could only hold one thing at a time. Forget tailoring items, he couldn't hold a ticket and coins. And the staff tweaked it for him.
I dislike shortening the range to average to very good because that allows for very little diversity. I dislike roleplay to raise it systems simply because the staff has to watch over it, and they have better things to do with their time. And I suppose point by systems are alright, but they will never be as dynamic, and I will lose all sense of logging into the game from time to time, seeing an 'exceptional' or 'absolutely incredible', and thinking that I'm just awesome.
That said, I don't think it's broken so I would not like seeing it 'fixed'.
Quote from: Thenne on September 07, 2008, 05:16:33 AM
At the same time it 'IS' disheartening to roll a low rank. It is 'very' disheartening to witness a person who is ... amazingly idiotic in various non impressive ways, be preferred to a man who's sharp and interesting, but is low skilled or got some debilitating low rolled stat.
I don't see this. In fact, I think that people who are interesting to rp with perhaps more opportunity than may make sense of someone of their abilities.
Did anyone ever get laid more than Fatty Tor? (Yes getting laid isn't a skill affected by stats but it does speak to preferences)
I hate random stats, because every time I get a great character concept in mind and app it, I get the shittiest stat rolls known to man.
But I love random stats, because if everyone had great stats, then the stat system in itself would become pointless.
I heard a proposition a while back I really liked, and here's how it went:
Upon character creation, the player would have two choices when it came to stats.
The player could either 1) Go with a random stat roll in the order they selected
2) Select a "fixed" set of stats and customize them a little.
Now, selection option 2 would prompt something like this:
Strength- Above Average
Agility- Above Average
Endurance- Above Average
Wisdom- Above Average
Points to spend: 0
-1 Wisdom
Strength- Above Average
Agility- Above Average
Endurance- Above Average
Wisdom- Average
Points to spend: 1
+1 agility
Strength- Above Average
Agility- Good
Endurance- Above Average
Wisdom- Average
Points to spend: 0
-1 wisdom
Strength- Above Average
Agility- Good
Endurance- Above Average
Wisdom- Below Average
Points to spend: 1
-1 Endurance
Strength- Above Average
Agility- Good
Endurance- Average
Wisdom- Below Average
Points to spend: 2
+1 agility
Strength- Above Average
Agility- Very Good
Endurance- Average
Wisdom- Below Average
Points to spend:0
Or something like this, I dunno.
Raising a stat past say "Good" or "Very Good" would cost more than 1 point.
At best, choosing option 2, you would get the opportunity to wind up with okay stats. Stats that are kinda low, but aren't horrible enough to have you "kill guard" suicide and start over. But, choosing the random option, it will stay like it is now. Sometimes you'll roll GREAT stats, others you'll roll shit.
I like the random stats and would never change them, as I use my character's stats as one of the methods to fully flesh out their personality, but I do find something curious.
I remember reading on here that supposedly, it's just as hard to roll "poor" stats as it is "absolutely incredible" stats, provided you aren't playing a 13-year-old or a 60-year-old right out of the box.
However, almost every character whose stats I can remember has ended up with at least one "below average" or worse, although sometimes they've disappeared on a reroll. Conversely, I almost never get "extremely good" and have gotten three or four "exceptional" and never an "absolutely incredible."
It seems to me that the random stats do seem biased toward being lower more often than higher, regardless of what guild/race/height/weight/age my PCs have been. Or perhaps I'm just unlucky.
Personally, I would not change the system of deciding stats at all. I think that a rethinking of a few skills and game features to perhaps make a character's survivability less dependent on having beeftacular stats would be a more progressive direction to take discussion in.
Keep in mind that this game is an incredible time-sink. Explain to me why I should play a warrior for a hundread hours (4 days) and then finally be able to down a certain agressive beastie, when my last warrior (and apparantly everyone else in my clan) could do it out of the box?
Quote from: Jingo on September 07, 2008, 01:10:52 PM
Keep in mind that this game is an incredible time-sink. Explain to me why I should play a warrior for a hundread hours (4 days) and then finally be able to down a certain agressive beastie, when my last warrior (and apparantly everyone else in my clan) could do it out of the box?
Is 4 days playtime a long time to you?
I played a warrior with pretty good stats (except wis) and recall that she still pretty much sucked at 4 days...in comparison to what she was by 80.
Perhaps look into longevity?
Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 07, 2008, 01:27:41 PM
Quote from: Jingo on September 07, 2008, 01:10:52 PM
Keep in mind that this game is an incredible time-sink. Explain to me why I should play a warrior for a hundread hours (4 days) and then finally be able to down a certain agressive beastie, when my last warrior (and apparantly everyone else in my clan) could do it out of the box?
Is 4 days playtime a long time to you?
I played a warrior with pretty good stats (except wis) and recall that she still pretty much sucked at 4 days...in comparison to what she was by 80.
Perhaps look into longevity?
It's just an example to make a point. I have played a reasonably long-lived warrior. My main gripe is that throughout that character's life there were new pc's popping up in that clan that could apparantly match my character in combat at day one. Most of them died off pretty quick but when more kept popping up and pulling off the same stuff I was doing at 10 days... I never felt like I was being rewarded for my longevity.
But yes, when you think about it, one hundread hours is actually a very long time.
Quote from: Jingo on September 07, 2008, 01:10:52 PM
Keep in mind that this game is an incredible time-sink. Explain to me why I should play a warrior for a hundread hours (4 days) and then finally be able to down a certain agressive beastie, when my last warrior (and apparantly everyone else in my clan) could do it out of the box?
Because you find them to be interesting people with an interesting story to tell?
Beating up a big animal doesn't make your pc a valuable pc in anyway except at a tool.
Jingo, try to think of it this way:
If they started out better skilled codewise, but died before you did, then they weren't better than you. Coded skills are useless if you don't have the brains to back them up. Longevity IS your reward. That IS the prize, for playing with a little intelligence and common sense. And of course luck always has something to do with it, because even the smartest, safest-playing player will lose their character eventually.
Stop patronizing Jingo. I know it's very fun to talk down to people that complain about statistics mechanics as if they're playing a hack and slash, but it is very rude.
The way stats factor into combat right now, I would simply suicide a warrior with a bad roll. Unless I was aiming at playing someone with the offensive and defensive capabilities of a cripple.
I like random stats. It's fun. But when warriors that have been alive and fighting for a few IC years or more are getting their asses kicked by newbie Bynners with ai/good/eg/eg, something's wrong.
Quote from: Barzalene on September 07, 2008, 02:25:33 PM
Quote from: Jingo on September 07, 2008, 01:10:52 PM
Keep in mind that this game is an incredible time-sink. Explain to me why I should play a warrior for a hundread hours (4 days) and then finally be able to down a certain agressive beastie, when my last warrior (and apparantly everyone else in my clan) could do it out of the box?
Because you find them to be interesting people with an interesting story to tell?
Beating up a big animal doesn't make your pc a valuable pc in anyway except at a tool.
I try my best to make my pc's interesting, but that is wholly another aspect of the game and not what I'm discussing right now.
I think I'll be playing a few flavor/political roles for my next few characters. Eventually though, I'm going to apping yet another wilderness character and that character is going to at the mercy of a few radom rolls again. And I really really don't want to go through 4 days (one hundread hours) of hunting bunny-sized creatures before challenging the beasties when somebody else doesn't have to.
Quote from: Lizzie on September 07, 2008, 03:01:38 PM
Jingo, try to think of it this way:
If they started out better skilled codewise, but died before you did, then they weren't better than you. Coded skills are useless if you don't have the brains to back them up. Longevity IS your reward. That IS the prize, for playing with a little intelligence and common sense. And of course luck always has something to do with it, because even the smartest, safest-playing player will lose their character eventually.
I actually cracked a grin at this and it is true. Though it does not solve the problem, as I see it.
I Love random stats, I love that not even I can make a cookie cutter PC, I still have never, will never stat order. Even with stat ordering there is still randomness so it is fine. Sure, now almost all warriors that are not elves are strong, pretty fast and healthy and dumb as rocks, but Meh, I guess that is the way people think they should be.
I've gotten my fair share of AI rolls and I've gotten my fair share of poor rolls. Interesting thing about that is, it makes no difference on how long my PC lives. Some of my best known had the worst stats. I played a dwarf ranger named Khalad way back during the rebellion who had poor wis, above ave agility and good strength. Yet somehow he still managed to make it through the byn, work his way up to LT in Tor, survive the luirs rebellion hrpt and much more. And he was considered one of the better fighters of his time. Hell, my Salarri officer Burr, who was a ranger with only slightly above ave stats and a dwarf managed to beat Shatuka in the archery in luirsfest (loved Shatuka BTW, best breed ever and best rivalry ever).
I do not understand the desire people have to make everybody "average", it is unrealistic. Leave the stats system the way it is, it is near perfect cept we need to split agi and dex up. And change the way you write up your PCs.
That is all.
Quote from: Yam on September 07, 2008, 03:07:20 PM
Stop patronizing Jingo. I know it's very fun to talk down to people that complain about statistics mechanics as if they're playing a hack and slash, but it is very rude.
The way stats factor into combat right now, I would simply suicide a warrior with a bad roll. Unless I was aiming at playing someone with the offensive and defensive capabilities of a cripple.
I like random stats. It's fun. But when warriors that have been alive and fighting for a few IC years or more are getting their asses kicked by newbie Bynners with ai/good/eg/eg, something's wrong.
I don't think asking the exact question asked is patronizing. And I certainly didn't phrase my answer to be rude. Unless you're referring to someone else, in which case they can examine their own conscience.
I'm curious about why you think he was ridiculed. I didn't see that at all.
Quote from: X-D on September 07, 2008, 03:13:31 PM
I Love random stats, I love that not even I can make a cookie cutter PC, I still have never, will never stat order. Even with stat ordering there is still randomness so it is fine. Sure, now almost all warriors that are not elves are strong, pretty fast and healthy and dumb as rocks, but Meh, I guess that is the way people think they should be.
I've gotten my fair share of AI rolls and I've gotten my fair share of poor rolls. Interesting thing about that is, it makes no difference on how long my PC lives. Some of my best known had the worst stats. I played a dwarf ranger named Khalad way back during the rebellion who had poor wis, above ave agility and good strength. Yet somehow he still managed to make it through the byn, work his way up to LT in Tor, survive the luirs rebellion hrpt and much more. And he was considered one of the better fighters of his time. Hell, my Salarri officer Burr, who was a ranger with only slightly above ave stats and a dwarf managed to beat Shatuka in the archery in luirsfest (loved Shatuka BTW, best breed ever and best rivalry ever).
I do not understand the desire people have to make everybody "average", it is unrealistic. Leave the stats system the way it is, it is near perfect cept we need to split agi and dex up. And change the way you write up your PCs.
That is all.
This is good advice. I've recently discovered that you can't really go about making a character in Armageddon, the same way you would in another game or setting where you had more control over things.
What happens is that if you build up a PC in your mind as to what you consider their supposed strengths, (I.E, this guy is gonna have at least VG strength!), then when you roll beneath that, and then even on a reroll, roll beneath that, you are going to feel disappointed.
I actually think for most people, it's not even the coded reasons that matter. It's whether they know it or not, the roleplaying aspect, and the fact they would feel like an imposter or twink, if they were to keep playing the character in the way they initiallyl envisioned. So it basically causes them to attempt to re-evaluate and find a new way to fit the character into the world, and for many, it merely causes a great feeling of 'meh'.
Perhaps people should deliberately envision 'average-ish' characters, and then if you get lucky on their stats, you can revamp them in an more 'impressive' direction. Perhaps the rest should be saved for special apps, if for instance, having that VG strength or better than poor endurance, would be a gamebreaker for the immersion in that mindset.
I still know that despite getting burned by it, and having done the below average wisdom thing for dwarves to, I would still rather it be random, and have the vague chance of something great, then be entirely under my control.
Stat prioritization allows you to choose in what order you wish your stats to be prioritized when they are rolled. It's not completely random or out of player control. Players do not have direct control over what exact stats they get, but they do have a pretty close handle on what they consider important. I don't think that it is realistic to expect that every character should have the opportunity to a character with supremely awesome stats. If that were the case, awesome stats could easily become commonplace.
It's good to have discussion about this, but I think that major suggested changes to character creation should really be brought up in the Reborn forum.
I've never actually seen a major issue with stats 'crippling' a character. I've certainly seen it take longer to get to a capable level, however. Just as an example, a still too recent char of mine to get into, -should- have had absolutely amazing stats given her BG but the stat roll that came around was below average, average, average, good. She lived near 100 days playtime and could usually spar 3 people at once without getting touched more then five times, absolutely undress a scrab/beetle/Gith and so on.
As was already mentioned, longevity is the reward. Some fresh out of the box warrior may have better stock stats then your 20 day warrior and hit you harder or faster, but your shield, disarm, kick etc.. is were the code balances that out I think. Disarm the noob.
Now, if some fresh PC can suddenly bypasses my shield, avoids my disarm and ducks my kick within a couple days playtime, then fix the code. Because -that- would be bullshit. The actual stats don't mean a thing imo. There are always smarter/faster/stronger people IRL but experience you can't be born with.
Quote from: Janna on September 07, 2008, 06:07:49 PM
I've never actually seen a major issue with stats 'crippling' a character. I've certainly seen it take longer to get to a capable level, however. Just as an example, a still too recent char of mine to get into, -should- have had absolutely amazing stats given her BG but the stat roll that came around was below average, average, average, good. She lived near 100 days playtime and could usually spar 3 people at once without getting touched more then five times, absolutely undress a scrab/beetle/Gith and so on.
As was already mentioned, longevity is the reward. Some fresh out of the box warrior may have better stock stats then your 20 day warrior and hit you harder or faster, but your shield, disarm, kick etc.. is were the code balances that out I think. Disarm the noob.
Now, if some fresh PC can suddenly bypasses my shield, avoids my disarm and ducks my kick within a couple days playtime, then fix the code. Because -that- would be bullshit. The actual stats don't mean a thing imo. There are always smarter/faster/stronger people IRL but experience you can't be born with.
That's not really a bad stat roll though.
Poor/below average/good/average is a bad stat roll. That's the type that makes any sort of combat crippling.
I've never had an issue with stats not matching up with my background, because I've never included physical prowess or mental aptitude in my backgrounds. That's something that can be fleshed out once the stats are rolled.
That said, I dislike how much stats seem to matter to the mundane character, especially strength.
I think stats are important to a certain extent; especially wisdom. With below average wisdom and a 10 day warrior, I was still unable to use some of my skills properly. I would critically fail once out of every four attempts on average when sparring with a character who obviously had great stats -- this was very disheartening.
I find myself writing out great character concepts I can flesh out, with goals, strange habits and quirks... but if they end up with low wisdom I just know I won't enjoy playing them. They just can't compete with the characters who have uber stats. In this case I usually end up storing or suiciding like a jerk.
Quote from: Ammut on September 08, 2008, 01:45:07 AM
I think stats are important to a certain extent; especially wisdom. With below average wisdom and a 10 day warrior, I was still unable to use some of my skills properly. I would critically fail once out of every four attempts on average when sparring with a character who obviously had great stats -- this was very disheartening.
I find myself writing out great character concepts I can flesh out, with goals, strange habits and quirks... but if they end up with low wisdom I just know I won't enjoy playing them. They just can't compete with the characters who have uber stats. In this case I usually end up storing or suiciding like a jerk.
Storing or even quit dying a character sorta makes me feel like a jerk too. It probably shouldn't since its just a game, not not every PC is going to be instantly clicked with. Some are even deliberately exploratory or throw-awayish. But it does.
That said. A low wisdom has never bothered me. Since it's just a matter of time to overcome it. I did a below average dwarf for a long time, and often saw people train much faster than me. But I stuck it out.
One time I had an elf that rolled poor strength (hahahahaha), absolutely incredible agility (HAHAHAHAHA), and below average wisdom and endurance.
In short, nothing could touch him, but damned if he could do more than moderately annoy his opponent with a spear. I may have laughed my ass off when I got those stats on a reroll.
Quote from: NoteworthyFellow on September 08, 2008, 09:37:43 AM
One time I had an elf that rolled poor strength (hahahahaha), absolutely incredible agility (HAHAHAHAHA), and below average wisdom and endurance.
In short, nothing could touch him, but damned if he could do more than moderately annoy his opponent with a spear. I may have laughed my ass off when I got those stats on a reroll.
Perfect sparring partner. :D He could have made a fortune.
Quote from: Salt Merchant on September 08, 2008, 09:43:53 AM
Quote from: NoteworthyFellow on September 08, 2008, 09:37:43 AM
One time I had an elf that rolled poor strength (hahahahaha), absolutely incredible agility (HAHAHAHAHA), and below average wisdom and endurance.
In short, nothing could touch him, but damned if he could do more than moderately annoy his opponent with a spear. I may have laughed my ass off when I got those stats on a reroll.
Perfect sparring partner. :D He could have made a fortune.
Oh, the missed opportunities!
...I suppose I should add
something to the topic.
I'll admit to a certain addiction to stat rolling. I love creating new characters, both for the fresh start they provide, and because coming into the game and seeing my stats has a certain thrill to it. Maybe I'm predisposed to like gambling, I don't know. But, I'll also admit to an equal amount of frustration with stat rolling, because even with stat ordering, there are plenty of times when
all of my stats have been lackluster, and that's a
generous way of putting it. Almost all of those times have been when it's been a sponsored character of some kind, or at least when I've put a lot of thought into the character rather than making a throwaway (whose stats always rock).
But despite those frustrations, I'm willing to keep stat rolling (with stat ordering) around, just because the only thing that would suck more than a frustratingly low stat roll is if everyone's stats were optimal for their tasks. I think we'd see a lot less improvisation as far as character concepts went, for one thing, and it just plain wouldn't be realistic. This is one thing I can stomach for the sake of realism.
This isnt a major problem.
If you get bad stats.
Suicide.
That simple.
No harm, no foul.
Noone ever knew you, you died within 1 hour of play, and the storyline that is Zalanthas was not affected by the fact you didnt want to play a crappy PC.
I play this game to have fun.
When I get a bad stat I have that constant voice in my head saying..."If only that stat wasnt slowing me down"...which hampers my fun.
I dont play this game to have hampered fun.
So to all of those people who shout..."I hate having to deal with bad stats."
You dont have to deal with bad stats. Thats why they invented the scrab.
Quote from: Desertman on September 08, 2008, 12:15:46 PM
No harm, no foul.
Really? I would assume that the imms wouldn't be too tickled by this. Is that not the case?
Suiciding characters is not recommended. If your character has stats that you absolutely do not want to deal with, at least send in a storage request.
It's usually fairly obvious to staff when someone "suicides."
Derail: There is no official rule against suiciding characters, but doing so can reflect poorly on you.
Derail: There is no official rule against suiciding characters, but doing so can reflect poorly on you.
Why?
That is a serious question. If there is no rule against it, why is it considered "bad" if I walk myself naked into the Silt Sea? Who cares? And if they do care...Why do they care?
I dont like the concept of getting a "Bad Reputation" for doing something that isnt even against the rules. I dont like the "OOC Grapevine" of whats "Right" and "Wrong" dictating my account notes and staff views. Especially when what I am doing is something that isnt even documented to be "Against the Rules".
I am getting a bad reputation as a player for committing an act that isnt even against the rules.
I know that the OOC "Mindset" or..."The Clique"...Have this elitist viewpoint that if you have bad stats you should play your PC anyways because its your responsibility to do so. *Pfffttt*
I dont kill people with my uber magicks, I dont kill people endlessly for no reason with my special app PC's of political power, I dont even kill PC's with my mundane raiders.
Yet I will get a bet rep for walking my 15 minute old PC naked into the Silt Sea for getting poor wisdom?
Ouch.
I am not trying to be a pain in the butt, as usual, I am seriously worried about this. I have walked quiet a few "Tards" (Stat deficient PC's) into the Silt Sea in the first 10 minutes of play.
If I opt to send in a "Store Request" instead of walking into the Silt Sea, will I still be looked at as a "Naughty Man" for not playing my pc with bad stats? Or is that considered OK, to store instead of suicide over bad stats?
As far as I know, DM, storing is considered 'fine' to do. The only reason people continue (and likely will continue) to suicide 'accidentally' or otherwise would be because one can kill one character, app another and have it approved and be back in game three days before the storage request even gets looked at. It's B.S to expect a faster reply on storage given that only select ranks or higher of staff can do them and with their work-load, three to five days is pretty damn fast IMO. But, all the same, the easier way to go is the one usually taken.
Maybe story-tellers can be given the ability to grant storages as well?
Maybe people should be allowed to store themselves.
I totally agree with DesertMan on this one. If you are not involved with any plots, or close to any charecter, what's the big deal. People die EVERY day in Zalanthas, it is a fact of life.
And to Nyr: What is the difference between storage and suiciding other that it adds story and RP possibilities to the people who find your corpse, saves staff time, and saves us the time of waiting on the staff. Not only is it not a rule, but it doesn't even make good since. You guys have a heavy enough work load without us asking you to do something that we can do for ourselves.
I don't think it is bad role play if you haven't even reached the point with interacting with your first PC.
Quote from: FantasyWriter on September 08, 2008, 02:29:29 PM
I don't think it is bad role play if you haven't even reached the point with interacting with your first PC.
So we're all OK with the playerbase at large just suiciding or storing their characters, until they get a stat roll they like, thereby completely bypassing the coded stat-roll system and giving themselves an advantage over players who are unaware of this strategy or have some ethical qualms about employing it?
Awesome.
I'd be perfectly fine with someone suiciding their character if they had made sure the background was full of reasons why, and documented their suicide attempts or thoughts. I'd almost be disappointed if they didn't try.
I suspect however that's not the case in the example provided.
Yes, we all play the game because we enjoy it. Usually it's a number of specific aspects we enjoy more, but the rest we're willing to shoulder and deal with, because it's worth it. When one chooses to ignore one of the shouldered responsibilities because of their personal ideals of fun, they do so at their own peril.
This could be suiciding your character for stats.
This could be ignoring vnpcs while stealing, killing, exploring, etc.
This could be for ignoring your environment.
This could be for not role-playing.
This could be for abuse.
This could be for not following the rules, sadly, sometimes the intent, if not the letter.
Use your imagination...
I don't think the staff are gestapo, nor are the things we ask for that much of a burden.
We don't force players to play roles they don't like, but we do ask players to share the burden of responsiblity, no matter how clunky and imperfect.
This shows respect for the game, the staff, and your fellow players.
I said "can," not "will," and not specifically about stat suicides--just character suicides in general.
If a player has the appearance of suiciding multiple characters, it can create issues if said player wishes to apply for a sponsored role, for obvious reasons.
That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
This is also why it is important to send an e-mail to your clan staff (or unclanned staff) when your character kicks the bucket.
If you find your character unplayable, please contact your clan staff/or submit a storage request.
With a storage request, we know why you stored, and we'll be able to research problems--such as disproportionately sucky stats that are unplayable, in this case.
Dakurus summed up a lot of the other stuff I was going to say so I'm just leaving it at that.
I don't like the idea of suiciding for stats, pure and simple ... I'd much rather somebody take the time to store, or just try playing the damned character.
This isn't to say that I think it should put a bad note on your account, persay, but I think that trying to play with your ailments is more fun.
What I'd like to see is prioritization work like this.
1st stat: good +
2nd stat: Average +
3rd stat: Below Average +
4th stat: Poor +
Then you will always have a good first stat, provided you use the priority system, and as long as you plan your character as a normal guy, you'll be able to play him. You still can't get insane stats by default, and nobody can even use the excuse of poor stats as a reason to suicide anymore. Meanwhole, those who dislike a focus on stats can't say that this makes it unfair.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 08, 2008, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: FantasyWriter on September 08, 2008, 02:29:29 PM
I don't think it is bad role play if you haven't even reached the point with interacting with your first PC.
So we're all OK with the playerbase at large just suiciding or storing their characters, until they get a stat roll they like, thereby completely bypassing the coded stat-roll system and giving themselves an advantage over players who are unaware of this strategy or have some ethical qualms about employing it?
Awesome.
No.
We have mentioned SEVERAL suggestions in this thread about what to do in this case, only one of which was suicide. It IS an option until we are told that it is not by the staff. This is a game. Most of us are patient enough to suck up a bad character until we find which niche we are going to put it in, but for some people, they want to get in and start right away with the character that they wrote. It is up to the player to do what they feel is going to make them enjoy the game.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 08, 2008, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: FantasyWriter on September 08, 2008, 02:29:29 PM
I don't think it is bad role play if you haven't even reached the point with interacting with your first PC.
So we're all OK with the playerbase at large just suiciding or storing their characters, until they get a stat roll they like, thereby completely bypassing the coded stat-roll system and giving themselves an advantage over players who are unaware of this strategy or have some ethical qualms about employing it?
Awesome.
Of course, you nOOb. How else can you win Armageddon if you're not the buffest/smartest PC out there that everyone needs to kneel to. Duh. ;)
Sarcasm aside, my personal outlook on stats is they really don't matter. If I don't like them when I first enter the game, I'll reroll, and then that's that. I don't store if they still suck. I make the best of it. I can have fun with almost any role I come up with, but some (and without judgements) can't. They -need- to have that stat to consider their character good or fun for whatever reason, and if being able to kill my below average str/wis warrior is something they need to know they can do, oh well. At least I'll have fun RP'ing up until that point with them then having a reinforced no-storage/no-suiciding rule and have a bunch of pissed-off unmotived players idling around me/quitting.
Hack and slash mentality will -never- be free of any game that has any sort of PK. It just won't. It's nature to want to be the best if that's the role you pick and if you have crap stats, it's not going to happen and it "spoils" it in the mind of (some) the players. This particular debate is about as old as mages or the like though, so I don't see it changing for either side anytime soon/ever.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on September 08, 2008, 02:46:04 PM
I don't like the idea of suiciding for stats, pure and simple ... I'd much rather somebody take the time to store, or just try playing the damned character.
This isn't to say that I think it should put a bad note on your account, persay, but I think that trying to play with your ailments is more fun.
What I'd like to see is prioritization work like this.
1st stat: good +
2nd stat: Average +
3rd stat: Below Average +
4th stat: Poor +
Then you will always have a good first stat, provided you use the priority system, and as long as you plan your character as a normal guy, you'll be able to play him. You still can't get insane stats by default, and nobody can even use the excuse of poor stats as a reason to suicide anymore. Meanwhole, those who dislike a focus on stats can't say that this makes it unfair.
Wow, I think this is a great idea.
I would be pissed off if stats disappeared. That said, I like the random factor in this game. I would like it a bit more if we could buy stats, maybe, but the priority system is the greatest thing to happen to this game since the invention of sand. If you just follow a prescribed system for the priority system, since those who use it are more worried about their stats than those who don't, I think it would solve nearly all stat complications.
Quote from: Janna on September 08, 2008, 02:47:57 PM
Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 08, 2008, 02:33:38 PM
Quote from: FantasyWriter on September 08, 2008, 02:29:29 PM
I don't think it is bad role play if you haven't even reached the point with interacting with your first PC.
So we're all OK with the playerbase at large just suiciding or storing their characters, until they get a stat roll they like, thereby completely bypassing the coded stat-roll system and giving themselves an advantage over players who are unaware of this strategy or have some ethical qualms about employing it?
Awesome.
Of course, you nOOb. How else can you win Armageddon if you're not the buffest/smartest PC out there that everyone needs to kneel to. Duh. ;)
Sarcasm aside, my personal outlook on stats is they really don't matter. If I don't like them when I first enter the game, I'll reroll, and then that's that. I don't store if they still suck. I make the best of it. I can have fun with almost any role I come up with, but some (and without judgements) can't. They -need- to have that stat to consider their character good or fun for whatever reason, and if being able to kill my below average str/wis warrior is something they need to know they can do, oh well. At least I'll have fun RP'ing up until that point with them then having a reinforced no-storage/no-suiciding rule and have a bunch of pissed-off unmotived players idling around me/quitting.
Hack and slash mentality will -never- be free of any game that has any sort of PK. It just won't. It's nature to want to be the best if that's the role you pick and if you have crap stats, it's not going to happen and it "spoils" it in the mind of (some) the players. This particular debate is about as old as mages or the like though, so I don't see it changing for either side anytime soon/ever.
To be fair, although I won't go too much into it as I don't want to derail, I think it's unfair and condescending to refer to anyone who values their PC's stats as having a "hack and slash" mentality.
There are many reasons why having awful stats can severely affect one's ability to have fun and a lot of them have nothing to do with combat.
I don't think that's exactly what she meant, but I agree. I do have a H&S mentaility sometimes (that never outstrips my RP mentality), but aside from that, stats can be absolutely valuable to a character concept.
How the hell could you RP a HG porter who drags a taxi-cart around behind him with room for four people without having a certian level of strength? My current character had to have a certian amount of X stat, or my character concept would have been ruined. Sure, I could have RPed around it, but still, it would have ruined, the concept.
Just a reminder of the OP:
Quote from: Jingo on September 07, 2008, 02:57:44 AM
While I like the recent of implementation that changes stat scores by age and I don't mind the stat-ordering system... I still don' like the way stats are decided in this game.
I don't like the idea that a few random rolls have such a significant impact on the performance and survivability of my character. I also don't like the idea that characters with less expieriance beneath their belts might eventually eclipse my character because they got a better roll. I also don't think it makes sense that there is an arbitrary cap on the amount my stats can be increased by rp. I was told by staff that I can't raise them past 'good'. (It'd be great if staff could weigh in on this.)
So, what I would like to see is a reversal of these systems. Rewarding players for rp and not for luck.
I think the random range of stats available at character creation should be shortened. Maybe a range of something like 'average' to 'very good'. This would allow some variability to character performance without rewarding them/punishing them too much for a few random rolls.
Secondly, I think there should be a higher cap for stat increases through rp. By no means, should this be easy. But I think that if my character wanted exceptional strength badly enough and had time (five years?) to train, then I think it should be in his grasp.
I also wouldn't be against awesome stat-scores by special-app either.
Thoughts anyone?
We have defiantly given you a lot to think about, no? ;)
I don't know. I struggle with this issue, you guys--I don't even really understand y'all's perspective completely. I've never created a character where anything about her was based on stats. I do prioritize my stats based on the character's supposed physical/psychological attributes, but if I don't get the stats that are absolutely perfect for that...I still play the character the way I was planning. I've never had a character with AI wisdom, and yet all of my characters have been smart in one way or another. My one major character who had below average wisdom, she was still smart; but she was slow to learn stuff, and poor at human empathy. I think it would have been a disservice to the game and the playerbase if I had stored or suicided her outright, just because her stat roll was merely OK.
The focus on stats just feels to me like it makes characters so narrow.
I confess I haven't read this whole thread, so it is likely I will tread ground that has already been trodden, or overlook responding to remarks which deserve a response. I'll start following it more closely now, though.
Not everyone in the game starts on an even level. This happens with race, guild, hereditary rank and wealth. Why should stats be any different? In our game, just as in life, you are given a range of assets and deficiencies which you must enhance or overcome to survive. That's part of the game, and should be an opportunity for roleplay. Find ways to make your characters stats a part of your own play, and I think you'll find the random stats to be a lot more fun. Especially since we now permit you to order your stats preferentially.
Update: Incidentally, stat-suicide is not an option. If you feel that your character's stats are totally unplayable, request for storage, do not commit suicide.
-- X
What if your stats that show on your score reflect your characters *perception* of their stats.
Realistically. 50% of any population is below average, and a nice bell-curve distribution is pretty common.
But ask anyone, if they think they are smart, and everyone believes that they have above average intelligence.
So your score sheet should *show* wisdom scores of everything from above average to AI, wiith Str, Agi, and Enduranced based on similar delusions.
Except HG's I guess, their scores should show up like this:
Strength: Can carry a wagon around OK.
Agility: Can't hit a halfling.
Endurance: I can walk days without sleep.
Wisdom: Huh??
Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 08, 2008, 03:10:08 PM
The focus on stats just feels to me like it makes characters so narrow.
You know what, though, babe? That's fine for you, and I'd never argue against that. But for some of us, not focusing on stats makes our characters feel narrow. To each their own. I think that offering a
lowest_value for the priority system pretty much wipes this issue out all together, for both sides. I think that a
lowest_value of
1.good,
2.average,
3.below average, and
4.poor, is fair for both those who care about stats, and those who don't.
Those who care about their stats, go on, I understand. Those who don't, I can feel you all too. Morgenes?? Morgie??!?
Quote from: nyrk on September 08, 2008, 03:13:40 PM
Except HG's I guess, their scores should show up like this:
Strength: Can carry a wagon around OK.
Agility: Can't hit a halfling.
Endurance: I can walk days without sleep.
Wisdom: Huh??
HAHAHAHA!
Please make a note...
I didnt mean I suicide until I get four Absolutely Incredibles.
Which is how all of the elitists are making it sound.
If I get a Ranger with an archery intensive background, who isnt strong enough to pull a longbow. Swim in the Silt Sea.
If I get a Warrior who has Poor Endurance and 75hp. Swim in the Silt Sea.
If I get an Assassin with Below Average Agility or Below Average Wisdom. Swim in the Silt Sea.
If I play, "The frail, skinny-man" - Extremely Good Endurance - Swim in the Silt Sea.
If I play, "The small, crippled child" - Absolutely Incredible Agility - Swim in the Silt Sea.
If I play, "The down-syndrome man" - Extremely Good Wisdom - Swim in the Silt Sea, special Olympics style.
Having "CRAPPY" stats and killing yourself off for it doesnt mean you have a "Hack and Slash" mentality.
It means you have decided that you will not be able to play this character realistically given the RP criteria you have initially set forth for the PC, and as such, isntead of playing an unrealistic character, you have decided to simply make a new character.
Edited to Add:
Update: Incidentally, stat-suicide is not an option. If you feel that your character's stats are totally unplayable, request for storage, do not commit suicide.
Well apparently we have a staff stance on it now. Good deal.
Speaking entirely for myself, my thoughts on stats and stat suiciding:
Armageddon is not meant to be all about hard coded numbers. It's a roleplaying game where you take on a role and tell stories. There are lots of other neat games out there that are more code-focused where you can skill yourself up to be an unstoppable badass, and most of them have better design in that aspect than we do. Armageddon classes aren't balanced, races aren't equal, and the character gen system isn't optimized for powergaming, because they aren't meant to be.
I realise that plenty of people want to roleplay an unstoppable badass anyway, or they just want to feel like their character is strong. I understand that. Rolling crappy stats is a bummer for me, too, and rolling good stats is exciting. But either way it goes, I didn't create a character to be a bundle of stats and skills, I created them to be a person of a certain race who looks a certain way and has a certain background. That's the things you have control over in our game; that's the character you should be intending to play.
Going off and suiciding a character over bad stats tells me you didn't really want to play a character, you wanted to play a bag of stats and skills. Well, to each their own. But down the road, when roles for nobles and templars and merchants open up, we may look at that. Those characters all have to suffer the same random stat rolls everyone else does. How will we trust that you'll stick with a role you applied for if it rolls up bad stats, if you have a tendency to suicide? It takes a lot of effort to set up special roles, and we don't want to see that wasted. The same goes for awarding karma. I like giving karma to players I think portray well thought-out concepts and personalities that will add something to the world. Those are the players that will do the best with high-karma races and guilds, not ones focused on getting absolutely incredible stats.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 08, 2008, 03:10:08 PM
I don't know. I struggle with this issue, you guys--I don't even really understand y'all's perspective completely. I've never created a character where anything about her was based on stats. I do prioritize my stats based on the character's supposed physical/psychological attributes, but if I don't get the stats that are absolutely perfect for that...I still play the character the way I was planning. I've never had a character with AI wisdom, and yet all of my characters have been smart in one way or another. My one major character who had below average wisdom, she was still smart; but she was slow to learn stuff, and poor at human empathy. I think it would have been a disservice to the game and the playerbase if I had stored or suicided her outright, just because her stat roll was merely OK.
The focus on stats just feels to me like it makes characters so narrow.
The difference is that regardless of the wisdom you roll, it's still possible to play a PC as smart as we want to. Since it relies on our own RL intelligence to an extent. So if your thing is playing smart, witty PCs that sit around writing poetry...You can get it done, regardless of your wisdom score if you can rationalize it in other ways (I.E, them just being empathic).
However, if someone wanted to play a PC that was unusually enduring, unusually strong or unusually swift, it would be entirely different. If someone put something in their background about 'always having had a strong back' or such, then got an above average strength, it would only make themselves an object of ridicule when the 'dainty, raven-haired lass' with the lucky EG strength roll can lift twice as much.
It's worth noting, also, that requests to have stats reduced are pretty much always granted, so committing suicide or storing over that isn't necessary.
-- X
Here is one for you....
The longest-lived PC I ever had was my third PC ever. Probably had him over a RL year.
For the entire time, I was such a newbie, I didnt know the Score command, the Skill command, or the Prompt command existed.
I simply didnt know they existed.
I never missed "Stats" or "Skills" in the least.
You cant miss something that you never knew existed.
I had fun with that PC.
To this day, I still have no freaking clue how much HP I had, what my Wisdom was, or if I ever "Branched".
You should have seen my trying to disarm, bash, and kick with that Ranger. I'm sure my other Bynners got a laugh out of me many times looking back on it.
---
So, why do we make stats visible at all?
Its obviously not needed.
We dont make "Skill" levels visible.
Why do we make "Stat" levels visible?
Is there a reason that we "Have" to have that?
Think on that.
Quote from: Desertman on September 08, 2008, 03:18:23 PM
Please make a note...
I didnt mean I suicide until I get four Absolutely Incredibles.
Which is how all of the elitists are making it sound.
If I get a Ranger with an archery intensive background, who isnt strong enough to pull a longbow. Swim in the Silt Sea.
If I get a Warrior who has Poor Endurance and 75hp. Swim in the Silt Sea.
If I get an Assassin with Below Average Agility or Below Average Wisdom. Swim in the Silt Sea.
If I play, "The frail, skinny-man" - Extremely Good Endurance - Swim in the Silt Sea.
If I play, "The small, crippled child" - Absolutely Incredible Agility - Swim in the Silt Sea.
If I play, "The down-syndrom man" - Extremely Good Wisdom - Swim in the Silt Sea, special Olympics style.
Having "CRAPPY" stats and killing yourself off for it doesnt mean you have a "Hack and Slash" mentality.
It means you have decided that you will not be able to play this character realistically given the RP criteria you have initially set forth for the PC, and as such, isntead of playing an unrealistic character, you have decided to simply make a new character.
Edited to Add:
Update: Incidentally, stat-suicide is not an option. If you feel that your character's stats are totally unplayable, request for storage, do not commit suicide.
Well apparently we have a staff stance on it now. Good deal.
You could use stat prioritizing in each of those mentioned cases to prevent the outcome of suiciding AND storing.
If your character concept relies a lot on one stat being higher than the rest, you should put that stat first.
Conversely, if your character concept relies a lot on one stat being worse than the rest, you should put that stat last.
Quote from: Nyr on September 08, 2008, 03:31:07 PM
Quote from: Desertman on September 08, 2008, 03:18:23 PM
Please make a note...
I didnt mean I suicide until I get four Absolutely Incredibles.
Which is how all of the elitists are making it sound.
If I get a Ranger with an archery intensive background, who isnt strong enough to pull a longbow. Swim in the Silt Sea.
If I get a Warrior who has Poor Endurance and 75hp. Swim in the Silt Sea.
If I get an Assassin with Below Average Agility or Below Average Wisdom. Swim in the Silt Sea.
If I play, "The frail, skinny-man" - Extremely Good Endurance - Swim in the Silt Sea.
If I play, "The small, crippled child" - Absolutely Incredible Agility - Swim in the Silt Sea.
If I play, "The down-syndrom man" - Extremely Good Wisdom - Swim in the Silt Sea, special Olympics style.
Having "CRAPPY" stats and killing yourself off for it doesnt mean you have a "Hack and Slash" mentality.
It means you have decided that you will not be able to play this character realistically given the RP criteria you have initially set forth for the PC, and as such, isntead of playing an unrealistic character, you have decided to simply make a new character.
Edited to Add:
Update: Incidentally, stat-suicide is not an option. If you feel that your character's stats are totally unplayable, request for storage, do not commit suicide.
Well apparently we have a staff stance on it now. Good deal.
You could use stat prioritizing in each of those mentioned cases to prevent the outcome of suiciding AND storing.
If your character concept relies a lot on one stat being higher than the rest, you should put that stat first.
Conversely, if your character concept relies a lot on one stat being worse than the rest, you should put that stat last.
Please Note:
Since the implementation of "Stat Ordering" the need to suicide, for me anyways, has been extremely limited.
Quote from: Desertman on September 08, 2008, 03:30:32 PM
Here is one for you....
The longest-lived PC I ever had was my third PC ever. Probably had him over a RL year.
For the entire time, I was such a newbie, I didnt know the Score command, the Skill command, or the Prompt command existed.
I simply didnt know they existed.
I never missed "Stats" or "Skills" in the least.
You cant miss something that you never knew existed.
I had fun with that PC.
To this day, I still have no freaking clue how much HP I had, what my Wisdom was, or if I ever "Branched".
You should have seen my trying to disarm, bash, and kick with that Ranger. I'm sure my other Bynners got a laugh out of me many times looking back on it.
---
So, why do we make stats visible at all?
Its obviously not needed.
We dont make "Skill" levels visible.
Why do we make "Stat" levels visible?
Is there a reason that we "Have" to have that?
Think on that.
How did you manage to not only play for a year, but actually survive as a single newb PC for that year...without ever finding out the score, skill and prompt commands? That's actually pretty impressive. Just completely avoided the forums?
I didnt read the forum for the first two or three years I played the game.
I remember someone asking me what my "GDB Handle" was, and wondering...WTF is a GDB?
You can thank Byn Sergeants Amurac and Stevith for managing to keep me alive.
I actually had the PC about two RL months before I found out what an "Emote" was.
My first ever emote I still remember it...
emote kicks Kyros in the shin.
(Thats right, I put his name in there, Kyros)
You should have seen me trying to figure out ! % ^ ect...man, that was chaotic for me.
I also tried casting spells in the Byn compound with that Ranger....
I had an Excel list to keep everything sorted and ordered, and went through every single possible spell word combination in a fourteen hour period and never casted one spell.
I was confused, to say the least.
I also remember wishing up for the first time with that PC....
I wasnt really sure what an "Immortal" was...I think I saw them as "Gods" or something...because I wished up...
wish all Please dont let me die from this posion oh great Immortals!!! I will offer anything back in return if you will only use your powers to spare me this once!!!
Someone sends: It doesnt really work that way, we are just game staff.
You suddenly feel better.
(Not exact wording, but I remember wishing up and thinking Immortals were actual IC beings)
----
Alright, got me off track...
The point is, we dont need to see our stat levels, there is no reason for it. Except it starts discussions like this.
Quote from: Desertman on September 08, 2008, 03:30:32 PM
So, why do we make stats visible at all?
Its obviously not needed.
We dont make "Skill" levels visible.
Why do we make "Stat" levels visible?
Is there a reason that we "Have" to have that?
Think on that.
Actually it could be pretty cool.
If you wanted to know if you are stronger than someone, arm-wrestle them.
If you wanted to know if you are smarter than someone, play some board game with them (a chess-like game maybe, IC, you don't move the pieces, but your character makes the game decisions)
Want an idea of your agility, throw some darts.
Or some compounds would have weights. See how much you can bench-press...
Basically if you want your stats, find out IC, just like everything else.
Quote from: nyrk on September 08, 2008, 03:41:54 PM
Quote from: Desertman on September 08, 2008, 03:30:32 PM
So, why do we make stats visible at all?
Its obviously not needed.
We dont make "Skill" levels visible.
Why do we make "Stat" levels visible?
Is there a reason that we "Have" to have that?
Think on that.
Actually it could be pretty cool.
If you wanted to know if you are stronger than someone, arm-wrestle them.
If you wanted to know if you are smarter than someone, play some board game with them (a chess-like game maybe, IC, you don't move the pieces, but your character makes the game decisions)
Want an idea of your agility, throw some darts.
Or some compounds would have weights. See how much you can bench-press...
Basically if you want your stats, find out IC, just like everything else.
WOW! now THAT is an idea!
Quote from: Desertman on September 08, 2008, 03:40:03 PM
The point is, we dont need to see our stat levels, there is no reason for it.
I do believe I proposed that a while back and everyone seemed to hate the idea. But I'm for it. Still.
OMG I AGREED WITH YOU.
*does the "I agreed with Desertman before he could agree with me" dance*
If you had better control over knowing weight when you shop, and if I could still prioritize my stats at chargen, before I got in the game and wasn't sure what they were, then I suppose I could deal with this.
But frankly, I'd rather things were left the heck alone.
Quote from: Desertman on September 08, 2008, 03:40:03 PM
I wasnt really sure what an "Immortal" was...I think I saw them as "Gods" or something...because I wished up...
wish all Please dont let me die from this posion oh great Immortals!!! I will offer anything back in return if you will only use your powers to spare me this once!!!
Someone sends: It doesnt really work that way, we are just game staff.
You suddenly feel better.
That's so full of awesome.
What I think some people are suggesting, is something like a "retire" command, with limitations:
1. You can use this only within the first 2 hours' play of your character, after he/she has left the Hall of Kings.
2. You -must- have already rerolled your stats. The command won't work, if you haven't already done that.
3. Retire is irrevocable, will not be reversed, you will be asked if you are sure you want to do this, and if you say yes, then that decision is final.
How's that sound?
Benefits:
1. It keeps the staff from having to deal with players who simply don't like their stats and would otherwise e-mail/request-tool/suicide. +8
2. It prevents the suicide cause my stats make my entire character concept totally bogus syndrome. +8
3. It saves time on the players' part, having to get a character approved, then wait for someone to retire it, before submitting another new one. +10
Drawbacks:
1. It has the potential for a very very few people who are really into the whole min-maxing to min-max - which they'd do anyway, if they're like that, by killing off their characters or requesting retirement. -4
2. It has the potential to make people who -don't- appreciate it, accuse those who -do- appreciate it, of being min-maxing twinks. -1
Based on my ranking system, which is completely arbitrary, I have concluded that the benefits of this suggestion outweigh the drawbacks.
Quote from: Lizzie on September 08, 2008, 04:37:42 PMBased on my ranking system, which is completely arbitrary, I have concluded that the benefits of this suggestion outweigh the drawbacks.
Best debate strategy ever.
And have it prompt them for a reason for it, so that we can store it, and collect/search them to see if there are common issues why someone would retire a character in the first 2 hours without playing, that we may or may not be able to address.
I have always thought the "Store Request" thing was pretty funny.
I understand the logic of course, the staff want to be able to monitor why someone is storing, incase their storing will have an affect on current plot lines.
The concept of having to request a storage for a brand new PC baffles me though. I chuckle inside when I think about getting this message back...
"No, your request for storage has been denied. You will play this PC, and you will enjoy it."
;D
Honestly, I would probably be so blown away, I would actually end up playing and enjoying the PC.
>Do you really want to retire your character? Y/N
y
>How come? Please pick:
1 - my stats suck, even after rerolling (note: your stats are: average, below average, below average, poor).
2 - I just found out my boyfriend is mudsexing with the girl down the street from me so I need to roll a f-me who will steal my boyfriend back so I can mudsex him and then kill him and his girlfriend and that other girl he wants to mudsex, to get my revenge
3 - I hate my stats, even after rerolling
4 - Ugh I TOTALLY picked the wrong guild and had NO idea that my character wasn't gonna have listen OR scan OR haggle and I need them for my character concept.
5 - Fuck these stats to drov and back.
6 - I was just KIDDING about making a dwarf with a mustache and a focus to go permanently bald!
7 - I just got an e-mail from staff saying I got more karma and really want to try out playing a mul!
8 - He's a desert elf. With poor endurance, poor strength, and 87 stamina. Nuff said.
In over 30 PCs I have suicided 3. 1 was total IC reasons and I even got staff kudos...Woot!
The other two were for stats. Abysmal...in one case the reroll was exactly the same as the starting, and in the other he started with BA/Ave/Ave/Ba...reroll...poor/poor/poor/AA, Splash into the silt sea. Nobody but me and staff ever knew they existed, not sponsered and not concepts that I was OMG I JUST HAVE TO PLAY THIS on either. If in the same situation again I would do it again. Put in a request for storage, your kidding right?
Now, That said. I have also, at least two times had PCs that though not sponsered, I REALLY wanted to play who also had pretty bad stats. Both times (before request tool) I was able to wish up with "Hey, I really like this dude, but this and this stat are simply too low to play, How about a little love?" Both times the stats were raised to usable levels.
I guess what I'm saying is, I see both sides, and I hate to suicide for stats, but come on, put in a request that could take 1-10 days easy to resolve then still have to wait for app approvel on a PC that has had ZERO impact on the game world? And the other side, If the stats are not too horrible, play it and ask staff nicely for a little love...or if they are mostly playable take the RP route to improvement.
I am in the camp of we should have an automated storage system, That way People who for whatever reason are sick of a PC can stop playing them and start another ASAP. I am one of those people who, when I'm done playing that PC, I'm done NOW, not tomorrow or next week, NOW. And staff can still review the storage at leisure after the fact. As has been said before, make sure the docs and even the system make it plain what abuse to it is and if somebody still abuses it, simply remove the option, everybody happy.
Quote from: Mood on September 08, 2008, 02:27:31 PM
Maybe people should be allowed to store themselves.
Going through the replies here, I would like to see this as an option on the login screen. The players would not have to wait for
approval to store their characters and could apply for a new one (still having to wait for that, obviously). Maybe there would be
an optional field which would state the reason for storing the character in question?
Quote from: Ammut on September 08, 2008, 08:15:26 PM
Quote from: Mood on September 08, 2008, 02:27:31 PM
Maybe people should be allowed to store themselves.
Going through the replies here, I would like to see this as an option on the login screen. The players would not have to wait for
approval to store their characters and could apply for a new one (still having to wait for that, obviously). Maybe there would be
an optional field which would state the reason for storing the character in question?
I think non-sponsored characters should have this option available, and you should have to state your reason for storing. For sponsored or leadership characters, this option should be unavailable--once you're in a position like that, you affect others by your storing almost as much as you affect yourself.
Personally, I would rather leave storing/retiring in the hands of the staff, *except* within the first two hours of gameplay for each character. During that first two hours, it's pretty difficult to get TOO involved in plotlines. Plus considering how long it takes to come up with a character concept, submit it through character generation, get it approved, and log in for the first time, it isn't -too- likely that someone will want to retire in the first 2 hours unless something is really fubared. Like - poor, below average, below average, below average - on a reroll.
I came up with the first 2 hours simply because it is the same amount of time you are allowed to use the reroll option. I would add, that if your character dies within the first two hours, and repops, you should -still- have the opportunity to retire the character. I don't know how the code would handle that, but I can't imagine how frustrating it is now, to show up fresh from the Hall of Kings, with sucky stats, and be -just- about to type "reroll self" when some other noob shows up and instaganks you just cause he thinks you're a mob. Will "reroll" even work if you haven't used it yet, and it's still within the 2 hours, but your character was killed before you had the chance to try?
Anyway. The point is to be able to retire a character because you know from the very start that your character just plain isn't gonna work out. BEFORE you get involved in plotlines, before you have a chance to practice your coded skills, before you really have -too- much chance to do much of anything other than realize your character isn't gonna work out.
I had an adolescent elf warrior with below average strength.
He got pretty decent.
But then again, it probably took me longer and I didn't realize it. I'm generally pretty patient though and good about having long-lived characters.
I did have a very long lived character with exceptional endurance, I think that helped in a few cases.
I've had qualms over a characters stats only once. It was in making up a crafter that had scores so low they could only have 3-4 items in their inventory. I was like, nuh-uh, not when some recipes used 5 items, not counting the tools used in the crafting itself. I requested for her to be stored though. I have only suicided once, and it was completely for IC reasons. I do like the idea of being able to store yourself though. On top of other things, it would cut down on staff workload in the long-run, and that can't help but be a good thing. ;D
We got a lot of responses from staff, which is great. But nobody answered my second problem. How come I can't train my stats beyond beyond an arbitrary limit? I can potentially roll AI strength when I make my character, but for some reason staff will not let me go past 'good' (in my case) if I roleplay training it. Can anybody tell me why? I have absolutely no knowledge of the system in place and there probably is a good reason for it. I just don't see it.
Quote from: Jingo on September 10, 2008, 02:34:46 AM
We got a lot of responses from staff, which is great. But nobody answered my second problem. How come I can't train my stats beyond beyond an arbitrary limit? I can potentially roll AI strength when I make my character, but for some reason staff will not let me go past 'good' (in my case) if I roleplay training it. Can anybody tell me why? I have absolutely no knowledge of the system in place and there probably is a good reason for it. I just don't see it.
I don't know. My suspicion is that if everyone could train up their stats the fear is that instead of rping with one another in the furtherance of plots people will be playing alone lifting weights and running in circles until everyone is AI at everything. Not that they would. But they could.
Quote from: Jingo on September 10, 2008, 02:34:46 AM
We got a lot of responses from staff, which is great. But nobody answered my second problem. How come I can't train my stats beyond beyond an arbitrary limit? I can potentially roll AI strength when I make my character, but for some reason staff will not let me go past 'good' (in my case) if I roleplay training it. Can anybody tell me why? I have absolutely no knowledge of the system in place and there probably is a good reason for it. I just don't see it.
I don't think there's ever been a stated staff position on this (I searched and couldn't find anything). My opinion is that it's not arbitrary to limit stat increases. Your character is unique and has personal strengths and weaknesses like any person would. Stat increases from logs and training are marginal increases, they are not jumps from point A (my stat sucks) to point E (my stat is AI). They are jumps from point A to point B. As stats are important but not the focus of the game, we allow the ability to increase a stat if it is lower than one would wish it to be through logs of roleplayed training--but not farther than that point, in the vast majority of cases.
Short answer: It is not an arbitrarily assigned limit or cap. Stat progression and skill progression all must stop at a certain point.
Another good way to think of it is that you're born with the body you have. You can train really hard to be less of a clutz, but you'll probably never train to the point that you've got the reflexes of Catwoman (Catman?). You can bulk up until your strength is good, but maybe your bones and tendons just aren't made to support all that muscle past a point. Etc etc. Unless you are born with it and develop it, which is where those people with exceptional strength come along.
My beef with the tiny, petite girl with AI strength beating up my burly bynner because he only has above average strength is of an entirely different nature involving stat prioritization.
After having read through a few things, here's my thoughts.
My issue with stats? I play roleplaying games because I want to play someone cooler than myself. I have better stats than half my characters. They are obviously not cooler than me unless they can use magick, but then I get dirty comments from people about all the magickers I'm playing. Well, if I could play anything else and end up with stats that allowed me to survive a fight with a rat 1/20th my size, I'd play something else.
The aging code? To date I have never seen a stat increase. I've only seen them decrease. So far, I am unimpressed at best.
A retire option that removes the need for staff to handle retirement of a character? I see this being abused. Oh, and by the by, Lizzie, by ridiculing an argument you do not necessarily eliminate the veracity of an argument. It's akin to saying, "Well, you're stupid!" in an argument. Why do you think that people that have suicided characters because of horrible stats will not use this for min-maxing? That is completely against the fundamental ideals of this game.
I don't want a way for players to store their own characters. I want as much attention on a retirement as possible by someone of human intelligence and not a machine. I want our characters to have better overall stats while still having the potential for a low stat because that adds character and dimension. (For an example, in a D&D campaign I once played a character with what would be poor for two of my six stats, both strength and endurance, but my other stats were phenomenal. Those low stats provided SO MUCH roleplay opportunity for both me and the party members because of my sickly weakling. It was awesome.)
If the chances of rolling poor/below average, along with Exceptional/Extremely good were lowered a bit, I think it'd all be fine.
Either that, or make "average" everything a little more playable than it is. I know alot of people who would suicide a character with average stats across the board.
Just bump up the names one degree. That'll make people happy. Average -> above average, above average -> exceptional, etc.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on September 10, 2008, 03:46:31 PM
If the chances of rolling poor/below average, along with Exceptional/Extremely good were lowered a bit, I think it'd all be fine.
Either that, or make "average" everything a little more playable than it is. I know alot of people who would suicide a character with average stats across the board.
I know I would hate to have a character with all average stats, I think I've been spoiled a lot by the stat prioritizing system and my "knowledge of how age, classes and races" work.
Mind you, it's probably all in my head, but when I want my first stat to be excepional/extremely good, I have it 80% of the time.
I usually get another exceptional in there, as well, most often my second stat.
Yah, see, now I'm totally spoiled and would probably consider a character with average in all his stats to be mediocre, at best.
Ehh... I would say bump up -everything- up a notch..... But "Average" could use a little more love.
Maybe if "average" were much more common (as "good" or "very-good" seems to be these days), then "average" would really be average, as it would be the most common stat among the people. Exceptional should be as rare as AI is currently, and AI should be just something special.
Quote from: Malken on September 10, 2008, 04:06:05 PM
Quote from: Qzzrbl on September 10, 2008, 03:46:31 PM
If the chances of rolling poor/below average, along with Exceptional/Extremely good were lowered a bit, I think it'd all be fine.
Either that, or make "average" everything a little more playable than it is. I know alot of people who would suicide a character with average stats across the board.
I know I would hate to have a character with all average stats, I think I've been spoiled a lot by the stat prioritizing system and my "knowledge of how age, classes and races" work.
Mind you, it's probably all in my head, but when I want my first stat to be excepional/extremely good, I have it 80% of the time.
I usually get another exceptional in there, as well, most often my second stat.
Yah, see, now I'm totally spoiled and would probably consider a character with average in all his stats to be mediocre, at best.
Hah, see? That's the thing. We're all spoiled to great stats.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on September 10, 2008, 04:08:15 PM
Ehh... I would say bump up -everything- up a notch..... But "Average" could use a little more love.
Maybe if "average" were much more common (as "good" or "very-good" seems to be these days), then "average" would really be average, as it would be the most common stat among the people. Exceptional should be as rare as AI is currently, and AI should be just something special.
Average stats are lacking compared to what, though?
I think what he meant is that you often end up with characters like, "exceptional strength, exceptional endurance, below average wisdom, poor agility", as opposed to, "good strength, good endurance, good wisdom and average agility"
Quote from: Marauder Moe on September 10, 2008, 04:13:16 PM
Quote from: Qzzrbl on September 10, 2008, 04:08:15 PM
Ehh... I would say bump up -everything- up a notch..... But "Average" could use a little more love.
Maybe if "average" were much more common (as "good" or "very-good" seems to be these days), then "average" would really be average, as it would be the most common stat among the people. Exceptional should be as rare as AI is currently, and AI should be just something special.
Average stats are lacking compared to what, though?
Compared to what seems to be the most common stat, or the true -average- of stats, "Good" or "Very Good".
Observe.
Poor,
Below-Average,
Average,
Above Average,
Good, V
ery Good,
Extremely Good,
Exceptional, Absolutely Incredible.
"Good" looks to be the middle man. Where I thought "Average" would be the middle man. Because it's average, you know? If anything, we should bring "Average" up to "Good" status, and go up and down from there. It could be more like this
Kill yourself, Balls, Teh Suck, Poor, Below-Average, Average, Above Average, Good, Very Good, Extremely good, Exceptional, Absolutely Incredible.
Quote from: Malken on September 10, 2008, 04:17:58 PM
I think what he meant is that you often end up with characters like, "exceptional strength, exceptional endurance, below average wisdom, poor agility", as opposed to, "good strength, good endurance, good wisdom and average agility"
Right, that, along with "Average" not truly being the real, honest to Tek
average.
Perhaps my idea has already been implemented, then. Heh.
So perhaps you're saying they ought to undo it? Make average truly average again?
Quote from: Marauder Moe on September 10, 2008, 04:22:23 PM
Perhaps my idea has already been implemented, then. Heh.
So perhaps you're saying they ought to undo it? Make average truly average again?
Along making rolls above or below average a little rarer.
::Edit:: Morever, raise "Average" to "Good" status, lower the increments between stat changes, and make higher or lower rolls rarer.
I am not in favor of doing what you suggest Qzzrbl. I don't play this game to be average. If I always saw middle of the spectrum stats, I'd dislike that greatly. Give me flaws and strengths. Don't make my characters average.
Instead I propose that everyone gets a certain amount of stat points that are invisible. Based on age, race, guild, and subguild, you would get more or less points.
Poor, Below-Average, Average, Above Average, Good, Very Good, Extremely Good, Exceptional, Absolutely Incredible
To get Below-average, you need to use 2 points. To get AI, you need to use 15 points.
Now, the mud will take those points and randomly create your most prefered stat, then your second most prefered stats , then your third, then what is left gets placed on your least favored stats. Your prefered stat has a range of good+
Quote from: Delstro on September 10, 2008, 05:03:26 PM
I am not in favor of doing what you suggest Qzzrbl. I don't play this game to be average. If I always saw middle of the spectrum stats, I'd dislike that greatly. Give me flaws and strengths. Don't make my characters average.
Instead I propose that everyone gets a certain amount of stat points that are invisible. Based on age, race, guild, and subguild, you would get more or less points.
Poor, Below-Average, Average, Above Average, Good, Very Good, Extremely Good, Exceptional, Absolutely Incredible
To get Below-average, you need to use 2 points. To get AI, you need to use 15 points.
Now, the mud will take those points and randomly create your most prefered stat, then your second most prefered stats , then your third, then what is left gets placed on your least favored stats. Your prefered stat has a range of good+
Right, but if everyone here had great stats, then who would your character be strong in comparison to?
What I'm proposing is taking the current "Good" stat, and making that the new "average" and then working off of that.
Hypothetically speaking, let's say stats are on a 1-18 scale.
Poor Below Average Average Above Average Good Very Good Extremely Good Exceptional AI
-2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18+
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's what it is currently.
This is what I'm proposing
Poor Below Average Average Above Average Good Very Good Extremely Good Exceptional AI
- 2 5 10 11.5 13 14.5 16 17.5 18+
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't all be supermen.
Maybe even throw in something like "Awful" to help balance out the below averages a little more.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on September 10, 2008, 05:30:47 PM
Maybe even throw in something like "Awful" to help balance out the below averages a little more.
I would hate to see it if anyone gets an awful in both strength and agility as I had but with poor. I could only hold 3 items in my inverntory. You could what, only hold one thing? Because that suck ass. Hard. Very hard.
Quote from: AmandaGreathouse on September 10, 2008, 05:41:30 PM
Quote from: Qzzrbl on September 10, 2008, 05:30:47 PM
Maybe even throw in something like "Awful" to help balance out the below averages a little more.
I would hate to see it if anyone gets an awful in both strength and agility as I had but with poor. I could only hold 3 items in my inverntory. You could what, only hold one thing? Because that suck ass. Hard. Very hard.
It wouldn't be terribly much different from getting "Poor" in both strength and agility, as "Awful" would take the 2- spot that "Poor" once took. Just to add a little more variety to our under average stats. :)
So it's not such a crippling drop for underaverage stats, seeing as there's more stats over average than under.
Ok, I thought you meant adding a whole new level of suck. Makes more sense now that you explained.
I've only had one character with two stats above very good throughout my entire history here.
The majority of my characters have had stats ranging between average and good.
Quote from: Salt Merchant on September 10, 2008, 06:57:01 PM
I've only had one character with two stats above very good throughout my entire history here.
The majority of my characters have had stats ranging between average and good.
I almost always wind up with an "Exceptional" somewhere in there.
Even though this was within the last year, I'd like to share with some of you the OOC concept behind one of my recent characters.
The "poor strength" warrior. In fact, when I made him, my strength was a bit higher than that -- so I rerolled to get a lower yield. I got poor on my second roll, which was exactly what I was looking for.
I wanted this character to eventually prove that statistics didn't matter over skills, and of course I had plenty of IC goals as well.
I could barely wear three pieces of the crappiest armor imagineable, and it didn't really matter. Over a relatively short period of time, I went from easy to knock out of the ring to incredibly hard to knock out of the ring.
I was only able to take him to about four and a half days of playing time, because I was killed out of what I can only imagine was jealousy because my "skill" more than made up for my horrible strength. At such a small, insignificant amount of playing time (because four days is NOTHING) I was still having trouble doing damage with sparring weapons, but unlike those of you who start with godlike strength... it was easier for me to see each bump up to my damage. It was also immensely satisfying.
I won't deny that out of the box stats seem to make up a majority of the difference for a lot of you, but this is only because of the immediate gratification provided by them. There is a huge different in what you can do "out of the box" between poor and absolutely incredible for sure, and I will not deny this. Skill still matters immensely. Others have pretty much hit the nail on the head when they mention that what is a "whole lot of time to you" is insignificant in reality. For the OP, you mentioned that someone who sticks around for "five IC years" should be kicking ass. This leads me to assume that you put this number up because you felt it was a huge, relatively impossible number to achieve, and it is anything but. Five IC years is right around six months I think... probably a drop in the bucket, unless you manage to play about a third of your time EVERY SINGLE DAY (eight hours, 60 days total), but I applaud the person with that much free time and dedication. A more realistic idea for that is 2 hours a day (still a significant average) giving you 15 days of playing time... and you'll still be sucking then.
I'll say that another problem for many of you is that when you step into the sparring ring, you want to WIN. It's not about development, it's not about moving yourself in a productive direction that is congruous with your IC character. It's about the win and asserting your dominance against your fellow player. It's much harder to learn from your successes than it is from your failures, and the AI out of the box n00b that always wins learns relatively little. AI strength characters actually wind up getting a little gimped, because they are relatively unable to progress in a more well rounded sense. I've seen it happen.
In the end, even though my little poor strength prototype didn't live to 100 days (my other OOC goal), I still feel relatively good about the results I got from my test. Indeed, almost each of you naysayers lack staying power and patience. Many of you also have a very incorrect idea about what a "long lived" character is. I think it's pretty safe to regard day 0 - 20 as you STILL being incredibly green and still relatively mundane in your skill level. My final verdict?
Skills > Stats.
As a final note... especially for those of you without as much time to spend on this game... don't let my diatribe lead you to believe that such a relatively unskilled character is worthless. This game has a huge social aspect, and I think much of the gist behind it is that you're supposed to make friends, network together, and achieve greatness shoulder to shoulder. Three fifteen day warriors that fight well together are still a force to be reckoned with, even if each individual cannot manage to shine on their own.
Oh, and another one! Keep in mind that there has NEVER been a "maxed" warrior either. Even the most long-lived, badass, kill you in two hits warriors that have been in the upper echelons of PC-dom were not the "best possible evah". There was still plenty of room for them to improve.
I've played a poor strength warrior for a lot longer than four days.
Skill doesn't make up for being unable to hit through gith skin after fifteen days.
I don't think four days of playtime in a sparring ring is enough to say that skills > stats.
This isn't at all about being the best in the sparring ring or anything silly like that. It's about playability.
As was my exact argument before, there's not a big difference between four days or fifteen days.
Fifteen days you are still skilled like a n00b.
Quote from: LittleLostThief on September 10, 2008, 08:24:37 PM
As was my exact argument before, there's not a big difference between four days or fifteen days.
Fifteen days you are still skilled like a n00b.
Fifteen days played. You aren't. I don't want to get into skill mechanics or anything, but a lot of skills can be near the caps.
Except for the most important ones, which do not follow conventional skill gain methods, still leaving you equaling a n00b.
Edited slightly.
I'm not very good at this board. :(
Quote from: LittleLostThief on September 10, 2008, 08:28:48 PM
Except for the most important ones, which do not follow conventional skill gain methods, still leaving you equaling a n00b.
Edited slightly.
360 hours of play is more than enough time for the skills in question to reach substantial levels.
This is simply incorrect. It's not remotely enough time, even if you spent every single moment of it working on your skills.
Quote from: Yam on September 10, 2008, 09:07:34 PM
Quote from: LittleLostThief on September 10, 2008, 08:28:48 PM
Except for the most important ones, which do not follow conventional skill gain methods, still leaving you equaling a n00b.
Edited slightly.
360 hours of play is more than enough time for the skills in question to reach substantial levels.
Only if you train to the point of spamming skills, so far as I've noticed.
I've had a character who was only just beginning to get decent with some skills at 10 days played. And he trained as often as he could realistically, and still wound up getting whomped by newbies with great stats. And his stats were pretty decent too.
-shrug-
I don't think that these arguments from anecdotal experiences are getting us anywhere.
Quote from: Yam on September 10, 2008, 09:33:55 PM
I don't think that these arguments from anecdotal experiences are getting us anywhere.
I once had a merchant who killed a carru with a sword.
He had below average strength and good agility.
Clearly this is irrefutable empirical evidence that this will always be the case!
QuoteI'll say that another problem for many of you is that when you step into the sparring ring, you want to WIN. It's not about development, it's not about moving yourself in a productive direction that is congruous with your IC character. It's about the win and asserting your dominance against your fellow player.
Let me get this straight...you're saying that it's unrealistic for a living entity (your character) to want to "win" when in a physical contest against another? That it's a "problem" with the players? I'm sorry but that's just plain ridiculous.
What person in real life enters into any sort of physical contest with no intention to win?
Alright guys! Are you ready?!!! I said are you ready?!!! Let's go out there and LOSE!!!! YAAAYYY!!!
jhunter,
It is VERY realistic for someone to want to win, whenever they are competing against someone else. But sparring isn't competing. It's practice. It's training. It's attempting to improve your own personal best, not to prove yourself better than your opponent. By addressing the poster who is discussing sparring, in a way that indicates you feel that it should feel natural for sparring people to want to win during sparring, suggests that you are either missing the point, or that your perspective is somehow skewed.
Plenty of people in practice against others in real life still want to win. There's nothing wrong with this. Especially moreso on Zalanthas I believe it would be the case. That is my point. Are you going to go full out and kill them? Likely not. Would you still prefer to dominate them knowing that you are not going full out. I bellieve that a larger percentage would.
It's like sports, you may be practicing but you're practicing in a more full out drill. You still try to win without killing your partners. Otherwise, noone learns as much and will not be as good as those that practice more full out.
Quote from: Lizzie on September 11, 2008, 01:47:50 PM
But sparring isn't competing. It's practice. It's training. It's attempting to improve your own personal best, not to prove yourself better than your opponent.
You're an awesome person, Lizzie, but you're not a guy. ;)
I never said it was unrealistic. Everyone wants to "win" sometimes, and everyone wants their best to be better than anyone elses.
The problem is that "winning" all of the time, as it relates to this game in sparring, doesn't do very much in the way of continuing your progression.
When I train IRL, I look for the baddest mutha in the valley and I fight him until he's disgusted with beating me. I know that I have the potential to learn more from a better opponent. I know that getting "beaten" will improve my personal game. The lines of "win" and "lose" aren't so clearly defined in this situation. My opponent might "win" by beating me with the rules, but I am "winning" because I am increasing my repertoire of relating skills.
Then when I turn around and play in a tournament, I do better against each enemy that I face off against. They might still be better than me, but my own level has risen. Sometimes it's not even about winning and beating out every single opponent, but about doing better than I've ever done before, and feeling good about my performance.
All of this might be a little biased since it doesn't approach a life or death situation...
I think the big misconception here continues to be that people feel fairly frozen at their "out of the box" ability. They don't feel like they'll ever hit much more, swing much harder, or do much better than they are able to do from 0 days and 0 hours.
I might argue until I'm blue in the face that skill is greater than stats and be right, but I don't feel like this addresses the major issue presented here. Skill might trump stats hands down, but "skill" is a long road and "stats" have the potential to provide instant gratification. Not everyone could be patient with a "poor strength" fighter for the ungodly amount of time that it takes to be a true badass, nor have fun along the way developing such a character. It boils down to the fun.
Something that I think would help everyone... might be to to look at the soldier NPC's in whatever point of civilization you live in. It's typically accepted that soldier NPCs are awesomely badass and will kill you quickly, even one on one. It is my opinion that more of these NPC's have a skill level that is "average". The thing that leads people astray is believing that a 0 day 0 hour anything is "average", where a higher developed character is "awesome". Your higher developed character is probably close to average, where as your n00b PC is only poor. Your hundred day warrior is totally awesome, kills NPC soldiers by the score, and deserves his position after putting in so many real life YEARS into the game.
Most of this was kind of masturbatory and my use of quotations was excessive. I still argue that when you enter into a sparring situation, your focus should be on personal development rather than asserting dominance. I'm not even suggesting that you shouldn't be proud of running your home field, just that you should understand the implications of consistent winning. Any higher end fighter type will tell you what a pain it is to advance after a certain point, when you cease to get the snot kicked out of you.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on September 11, 2008, 02:07:55 PM
Quote from: Lizzie on September 11, 2008, 01:47:50 PM
But sparring isn't competing. It's practice. It's training. It's attempting to improve your own personal best, not to prove yourself better than your opponent.
You're an awesome person, Lizzie, but you're not a guy. ;)
Remember that one warrior woman of mine? She loved to win in the sparring ring. She was just usually too gracious to gloat over y'all when she did.
Competition has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with the individual's desire for dominance. Wanting to dominate in the sparring ring is A-OK. (Or anywhere else ;) )
Littlelostthief-
Oh I agree with you that skills trump stats. I was just making a point about that one particular statement you made. It sounded as if you were saying that people were going OOC with their pc wanting to be dominant in sparring matches.
I should probably be arguing that you can still have -fun- with poor stats, and that you aren't totally gimped by them. You can still develop relationships and enjoy the crux of the game. You can still be useful to your friends or business associates, and you still have something amazing to offer. You can still have your character progress to a point where you are a formidable opponent, and it is possible to take something with poor strength and eventually dominate that absolutely incredibly strengthened guy that popped out of the box and thrashed you around. It's just a lot harder, and it's especially a lot harder now with a few changes to the combat code.
Oldschool, someone would have made a d00d with AI out of the box and never even been able to tag someone with a passable defense. All that phenomenal strength wouldn't have held a candle to staying power, persistence, and skill. I've struggled with the new system some and I have to say that I like the fact it's so much easier to hit your opponent all the way around. I think it's a little more realistic, and achieving a phenomenally untouchable character is still possible, though it takes an even longer investment of time.
As a leader or someone responsible for other characters in any way, I can promise you that I'd much rather have a character around with poor strength that was patient and had the ability to show some staying power, than some absolutely incredibly strengthened gimp that I know is going to go out and die while hunting because they feel like they're invincible when they are most absolutely not. *takes a breath*. Even someone with AI strength WITH persistent staying power might not top my list of "favorite" employee, because it's easy to see how they are also deficient in many ways. It's much harder for them to build a well rounded character as it relates directly to their skill set.
Johnny the Homocidal Maniac might consistently throw out brutal shots because his arms are so beefy, but it makes it harder for him to spar with his friends. Then when we're all out in the desert and we're attacked by droves of something nasty, Johnny shows everyone that he's a glass howitzer. He's still valuable, but winds up being a much weaker link than he thinks he is.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 11, 2008, 02:23:18 PM
Competition has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with the individual's desire for dominance.
Touché. But, in real life (
not 'geddon), testosterone tends to be a major influence; plus, that sort of thing has been rather more encouraged for males.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on September 11, 2008, 03:03:20 PM
But, in real life (not 'geddon), testosterone tends to be a major influence; plus, that sort of thing has been rather more encouraged for males.
Women have testosterone too, albeit (averagely) somewhere in range of 5 to 10% of what a man has. But it's just not possible to directly correlate testosterone with dominance; the numbers being what they are, it would be an exceedingly rare woman who has more testosterone than any given man. And yet there are plenty of women who are more dominant than many men.
What I'm saying is, there's lots more factors.
Hey, LittleLostThief, no one will remember your character in a month, but everyone will always remember my +50 days human warrior with AI strength and exceptional agility who could take on
bahamets by himself like they were mere gimpka rats.
Try to do that with a warrior with poor agility, even in 50 days of playtime, I can guarantee you that you'll still get beaten badly by a lot of critters and PCs who were
lucky enough to get great stats.
You know, not -every- characters with great stats die within a few days of playtime.
I think it's a fine character concept, to want to win even in sparring. I think it is more of a player's need to "win" when the -player- thinks that you're supposed to want to win in sparring.
As long as it is an individual character's perspective, and not the player's need to dominate, then that's just fun roleplay.
What burns me, is when I the sparring -becomes- the competition, no matter who I'm sparring with. It's like, uh, hay gaiz, we iz playing, this r not srly now.
And I might be a man or I might not...but most serious athletes will strive for their personal best, over beating the crap out of some rookie just cause they want to win. Most serious athletes train because they want to get better, so when it comes time for the -actual- competition, they can win. Winning during training is a bonus. It isn't the purpose, and it certainly isn't the focus. When we practice golf, we play to see if we can get our total shots down from our lowest. Our OWN lowest, not our opponent's lowest. Cause he's not our opponent when we're practicing. He's our partner.
When we go bowling, we practice to lower our own average, or to learn how to maneuver around the House's oil conditions. Not to beat the guy we're bowling with, or to beat the team of girl-scouts in the next pair of lanes.
When we have batting practice on the baseball field, we hit balls to improve our aim, to help us learn more about the different pitches, and how not to rip the knees on our pants when we slide.
When we practice ice hockey in the rink, we practice how to make the the fights the most entertaining, brutal, and bloody for the crowds in the stands..I mean uhm..we practice our shooting, our mastery over the ice, our ability to get away from people chasing us with 4-foot-long wooden sticks...
Basically practice is to improve. Winning is only winning if you are actually -competing against- someone. If you are sparring WITH someone, then they are your partner, not your opponent. And if you are sparring WITH that person, you want THEM to get better too. Because in a -real- fight, he will be along side of you, fighting WITH you against the opponent.
The T'zai Byn, I'll use it as an example, is full of brutish, crude mercenaries who like bloodying things up and getting paid to do so. Egos tend to flare, and testosterone flows like a river in the compounds, and most of them are trying to make themselves look as good as possible so they get promotions, so they can get paid more to bloody things up.
At least that's my take on it.
Occasionally you'll find a nice guy in there who'll sit you down and teach you stuff, but most everyone else just wants to beat the crap out of you during sparring. The usual thought is, "If they don't wanna get beat up so bad, they'll jes' hafta get better."
Nobody will remember your character in six years, but that's really not the point here.
There is an undeniable gap between what similarly skilled characters with radically different stats can do fo sho.
Each character has their own hardships to face and their own obstacles to overcome. My argument is that it's still possible for a "poorly" statted character to succeed and be enjoyable. Eventually, a poor agility character will still be able to kick a bahamets ass solo. That might not need to be your primary goal, but the possibility and potential is there.
You shouldn't feel like it's impossible to succeed just because some of your stats are stinky. Then again, I've never played someone with poor stats all the way around, and that might change my perspective a little.
The only time stats matter is when they do not fit your character concept. Again, concept. In such situations, negotiations with the staff or storing are in order. At any other time, deal with it and move on.
On the issue of suiciding for stats, I think it would be good to try to fix the root causes. I like the suggestions of some kind of automated, or at least faster, way to store characters. I doubt I'll ever dump a character over stats (I like a challenge), but I empathize with the people who don't want to wait RL days for what may just be a formality (in some cases).
I also think if people used that kind of automated approach, the staff could at least track why people are storing their 1-hour old characters. Then at least they'd be in a better position to try to prevent the "unplayable" rolls from happening in the first place.
On a side note, I'm really curious how often people are doing this. Because I think it actually makes the problem worse, by making great stats more common, causing lower stats to feel more unplayable, resulting in more silt sea swims, etc. I don't buy the "no harm done" argument at all.
The root cause is putting alot of time and effort into the chargen, and beyond that, building them up in your head in an idealized fashion.
In some ways, I think it is best to make a character as vague as you can, and then fill in the blanks later. Otherwise, you'll almost certainly be disappointed.
I don't have a problem with bad stats. In most areas of the game they add flavor and they're fine.
I just think that they have far too much of an influence on combat.
Quote from: Yam on September 11, 2008, 10:07:25 PM
I don't have a problem with bad stats. In most areas of the game they add flavor and they're fine.
I just think that they have far too much of an influence on combat.
QFT
QuoteHey, LittleLostThief, no one will remember your character in a month, but everyone will always remember my +50 days human warrior with AI strength and exceptional agility who could take on
bahamets by himself like they were mere gimpka rats.
I've had only a handful of characters so I can't speak with any authority.
But....
My most rewarding character so far was a fighter with Bad stats. She was also handicapped by half of her sparring partners being vpc's.
Stories are based around conflict, and every day was a challenge for her. Would another new recruit turn up to treat her with comtempt after a few rounds. Would it be today she was accidentally killed by one of her friends?
I don't know which beasts she could kill ..she didn't do much solo fighting, she was part of a team.
But I think she probably would've been remembered for more than a month, because she stuck around for a while, and because she had issues stemming from her various handicaps. And she was counterpoint to some of her awesome associates, who
will be remembered.
Of course, I am still looking forward to one day making a winner, whether she gets her prize by natural talent or the right attitude.
You know what I hated more than any bad stat?
EG Wisdom. I never failed at anything and never felt like I would get better at anything. That is the worst.
While stats might be overcome with patience and time, that doesn't address the problem of players not being able to have fun along the long road.
The social aspect of the game does some to alleviate this problem, but not all of us are hardcore socializers.
Maybe if there were more coded things to do that didn't necessarily rely on stats or even specific skills it could work to making d00ds that can't solo a bahamet fun to play during the "inept" times.
Characters might start at the low end of the totem pole as far as skill is concerned, far below a Zalanthan average, but they shouldn't ever feel like it would be hopeless to become "average".
Has anyone ever heard of the Bell Curve? Why is "average" the closest level to poor? "Average" stats are normally below the average of what is normally rolled. When I have an average stat I get pissed because I almost always get above average or better on all my stats. Can we change the names of the stats because "average" really isn't average in Zalanthas. In most cases "average" means beaten and "good+" means winning.
Quote from: Sephiroto on September 13, 2008, 01:30:26 PM
Has anyone ever heard of the Bell Curve? Why is "average" the closest level to poor? "Average" stats are normally below the average of what is normally rolled. When I have an average stat I get pissed because I almost always get above average or better on all my stats. Can we change the names of the stats because "average" really isn't average in Zalanthas. In most cases "average" means beaten and "good+" means winning.
I'm pretty sure the names of the stats are meant to be taken at face value. Average means average, poor means poor, exceptional means exceptional. People are competing because they feel their stats need to be high relative to everyone around them, not because of what the stats are called or what the actual value is.
I'm all for hiding stats and removing the issue entirely, it's the only way I can see to get people to stop getting so worked up over the numbers. It's that or just drop the stat system entirely, but I think the variety is good for the game.
I'm all for hiding stats, if there are coded ways to test them without fighting some random creature.
But that doesn't exactly make much sense, to remove a player's ability to be able to tell how strong your person is. The character would know.
Quote from: Is Friday on September 13, 2008, 02:33:36 PM
I'm all for hiding stats, if there are coded ways to test them without fighting some random creature.
But that doesn't exactly make much sense, to remove a player's ability to be able to tell how strong your person is. The character would know.
My feeling is that it's like real life. It's all kind of relative and insubstantial. There aren't really definitive tests to measure total intelligence, strength etc in real life. Well not really reliable ones, and it somewhat depends on how you define the categories. The extreme examples are easily apparent, but most people fall into the fuzzy midrange.
I'm not sure people currently rp their characters exactly the way their stats are listed anyway, I suspect that "exceptional" strength has been played as everywhere from waifish to hulking, and wisdom is probably even more random.
Armageddon is a game, not real life.
I just got the crappiest stats imaginable for what I think is a cool char concept. So you people stop complaining and enjoy your virtual life.
Crappy stats are completely avoidable.
.
A lot of people aren't saying that they don't care. They're saying we actively prefer the random stats. We don't want homogeneous buffness; we enjoy or are willing to deal with the challenge of bad stats. I don't think ti has to be reworked immediately. I hope it is not.
QuoteA lot of people aren't saying that they don't care. They're saying we actively prefer the random stats. We don't want homogeneous buffness; we enjoy or are willing to deal with the challenge of bad stats. I don't think it has to be reworked immediately. I hope it is not.
QFT
In real life we all roll on the semi-random stat table of genetics.
Quote from: X-D on September 24, 2008, 08:12:43 AM
QuoteA lot of people aren't saying that they don't care. They're saying we actively prefer the random stats. We don't want homogeneous buffness; we enjoy or are willing to deal with the challenge of bad stats. I don't think it has to be reworked immediately. I hope it is not.
QFT
In real life we all roll on the semi-random stat table of genetics.
In real life you don't have to be rich to get room service, or take a bath, and you don't have to ride a horse to school.
Real life is irrelevant. "Reasonable viability" is of primary concern, to me, when it comes to stats. By that, I mean, what is it -reasonable- to expect that my character is capable of? Not what it the best that I want them to do - but what is a reasonable expectation?
It is a reasonable expectation that my mundane, unimportant, non-sponsored ranger/weaponsmith PC have *enough* strength and agility to hold some commonly made and available bow, and use it. They don't have to be very strong...they don't need uber agility. But if my hunter has to special order a 1000-sid bow and wait a game-year for it to be made, just because she can't find a single bow in the market over the course of 2 RL weeks that "seems just right"...then that is not a "reasonable expectation."
If I want some day, for my merchant_guild PC to become a master merchant, and she is so weak that she can't hold one log, or 2 planks of wood, or more than one blocky piece of stone...or whatever else is necessary to make certain things that constitute "mastery" in a skill...then she is unviable.
If my magicker's wisdom is SO bad that it takes her 20 minutes to regen enough mana to cast a single spell, and even then she can only cast one because she has less than "x" mana.... then she isn't gonna be much of a magicker, and the point of making her a magick guild kind of ends up pointless.
Stats -can- be very important. They aren't always important, and sometimes they don't matter at all. But if you want your character to actually USE the skills their guild and subguild came with, then yeah they're pretty important.
Fortunately, the random roll isn't as random as it seems. There are bonuses and priorities placed automatically depending on what race/guild you pick. UNfortunately, there's no guarantee that the highest score, placed by your bonuses and automatic priorities, will be good enough to actually use the skills that come with your guild. So what I'd like to see, is whatever bonuses you get, will give that auto-picked stat something better than "above average." It would be nothing less than good. The next stat in line could be nothing less than average. The next in line could be nothing less than below average..
But the "random" part would allow any of them to be -better- than those minimums. So you could still get an AI in all 4 (theoretically) - you just won't ever get *less* than Good, Average, Below Average, and Poor, in the order according to the un-picked, computer-generated bonuses and priorities according to your race and guild selection.
Quote from: Lizzie on September 24, 2008, 08:37:26 AM
In real life you don't have to be rich to get room service, or take a bath, and you don't have to ride a horse to school.
Real life is irrelevant. "Reasonable viability" is of primary concern, to me, when it comes to stats. By that, I mean, what is it -reasonable- to expect that my character is capable of? Not what it the best that I want them to do - but what is a reasonable expectation?
It is a reasonable expectation that my mundane, unimportant, non-sponsored ranger/weaponsmith PC have *enough* strength and agility to hold some commonly made and available bow, and use it. They don't have to be very strong...they don't need uber agility. But if my hunter has to special order a 1000-sid bow and wait a game-year for it to be made, just because she can't find a single bow in the market over the course of 2 RL weeks that "seems just right"...then that is not a "reasonable expectation."
If I want some day, for my merchant_guild PC to become a master merchant, and she is so weak that she can't hold one log, or 2 planks of wood, or more than one blocky piece of stone...or whatever else is necessary to make certain things that constitute "mastery" in a skill...then she is unviable.
If my magicker's wisdom is SO bad that it takes her 20 minutes to regen enough mana to cast a single spell, and even then she can only cast one because she has less than "x" mana.... then she isn't gonna be much of a magicker, and the point of making her a magick guild kind of ends up pointless.
Stats -can- be very important. They aren't always important, and sometimes they don't matter at all. But if you want your character to actually USE the skills their guild and subguild came with, then yeah they're pretty important.
Fortunately, the random roll isn't as random as it seems. There are bonuses and priorities placed automatically depending on what race/guild you pick. UNfortunately, there's no guarantee that the highest score, placed by your bonuses and automatic priorities, will be good enough to actually use the skills that come with your guild. So what I'd like to see, is whatever bonuses you get, will give that auto-picked stat something better than "above average." It would be nothing less than good. The next stat in line could be nothing less than average. The next in line could be nothing less than below average..
But the "random" part would allow any of them to be -better- than those minimums. So you could still get an AI in all 4 (theoretically) - you just won't ever get *less* than Good, Average, Below Average, and Poor, in the order according to the un-picked, computer-generated bonuses and priorities according to your race and guild selection.
This one exactly, and I have stored for having a crafter that was unable to hold all the items to craft with. I wouldn't suicide over it, but shit, that roll kinda defeated her main purpose, because, well, how the fuck was she supposed to survive?
The staff have been known to make adjustments in those cases. Which are usually rare from my experience. I love the random factor about stat rolls. I would have been fine if stat ordering hadn't been added but it was and I'm fine with that since there is still the random factor involved. I would absolutely -hate- to see that go away.
Bad stats can be dealt with several ways, you can make adjustments to the pc, get staff aid in making actual stat adjustments, deal with it IC (for some stats through roleplay of working out, etc and logging to email to staff).
I believe str preventing you from using a bow isn't any issue any longer, btw. You just use more stamina when shooting the bow the lower str you have.
Low wis with a magicker is a problem....but only if you're stupid enough not to make that a priority.
That's what the priority system is for people, unless you honestly don't care, use it and stopping whining because you can't pick and choose your stats.
If any change were made to add the ability to pick your stats or spend points for them, I think that it should limit how high you can get in any one stat. You might be able to have a higher average picking them that way, but you'll never be able to have that random chance of being well above the bar.
The only time I've gotten really crappy stats was this one time I saw I had medium stats with a low one, and decided to try a reroll. I could have lived with the medium-low stats. Instead, I got shafted, and I felt that was perhaps my due ;)
But it was cool, because he didn't last long anyway. Not due to death, or crappy stats, but because I wandered off to take a different role. One I would have taken regardless of his stats.
I've never had that problem Amanda.
And Lizzie, You have never had a Half-giant mage have you?
I once had a HG rukkian, Some of you might even remember Bosh...and with 1 mana over the min needed to cast a spell he became a rather effective mage in a rather short time.
In almost every arguement people have given saying they have had this or that problem, it has been their own fault.
And now we have stat ordering. I doubt VERY much you could even possibly end up with a PC who would not be viable to become a master merchant if you took say, Human, adult age, and ordered the stats str/wis/agi/end.
Your ranger cannot pull a willow bow, Stop making them 17...Same for that warrior who has to wear sandcloth because even leather armor weighs him down too much.
Stats in arm are only barely random even if you don't order your stats. It is a RARE day that I make a PC and I do not get nearly exactly the stats I expect to get...and by rare I mean it has happened 2 times in over 30 PCs, and I don't even order the stats.
QuoteFortunately, the random roll isn't as random as it seems. There are bonuses and priorities placed automatically depending on what race/guild you pick. UNfortunately, there's no guarantee that the highest score, placed by your bonuses and automatic priorities, will be good enough to actually use the skills that come with your guild. So what I'd like to see, is whatever bonuses you get, will give that auto-picked stat something better than "above average." It would be nothing less than good. The next stat in line could be nothing less than average. The next in line could be nothing less than below average..
That is a good idea though.
Quote from: manonfireCrappy stats are completely avoidable.
Quote from: X-D on September 24, 2008, 10:40:36 AM
Stats in arm are only barely random even if you don't order your stats. It is a RARE day that I make a PC and I do not get nearly exactly the stats I expect to get...and by rare I mean it has happened 2 times in over 30 PCs, and I don't even order the stats.
Quote from: LizzieFortunately, the random roll isn't as random as it seems. There are bonuses and priorities placed automatically depending on what race/guild you pick.
It sounds like some people have made such a detailed study of this that they've constructed an actual table of stat allotments. Maybe as a collaborative effort? Or maybe it's just the benefit of having so many characters die that one creates so many that one finds this information out. Or maybe there are just that many staff and ex-staff characters in the game.
I don't know what wonderful tricks you've learned, but I don't like the fact that it can be reduced to a numbers game like this. As OOC knowledge, it can be used to gain an in-game advantage over players that plug along not using the tricks and getting average<->good stats nearly every time.
It's all pretty straight forward.
You have a role in mind for a character. You then make the character, choosing the following things accordingly:
-height/weight
-age
-race
-class
-order of stats
You then play the role. I have no idea exactly how the code works, but if you do all of that and still can't play the role you had in mind (due to stats) then you're probably doing something wrong.
Quote from: Salt Merchant on September 24, 2008, 03:24:59 PM
Quote from: manonfireCrappy stats are completely avoidable.
Quote from: X-D on September 24, 2008, 10:40:36 AM
Stats in arm are only barely random even if you don't order your stats. It is a RARE day that I make a PC and I do not get nearly exactly the stats I expect to get...and by rare I mean it has happened 2 times in over 30 PCs, and I don't even order the stats.
Quote from: LizzieFortunately, the random roll isn't as random as it seems. There are bonuses and priorities placed automatically depending on what race/guild you pick.
It sounds like some people have made such a detailed study of this that they've constructed an actual table of stat allotments. Maybe as a collaborative effort? Or maybe it's just the benefit of having so many characters die that one creates so many that one finds this information out. Or maybe there are just that many staff and ex-staff characters in the game.
I don't know what wonderful tricks you've learned, but I don't like the fact that it can be reduced to a numbers game like this. As OOC knowledge, it can be used to gain an in-game advantage over players that plug along not using the tricks and getting average<->good stats nearly every time.
My table of stats:
Characters age 23 and under - Terrible stats
Characters age 55 and older - Terrible stats.
Once you realize this, you learn to not expect good stats, and just flow with it. Your expectations are too high.
Luckily, stats will increase now, so that's fantastic!
I usually let the game do the stat ordering randomly, because I can't be bothered doing the research to figure out exactly which stat needs to be the priority to make the "most" viable "whatever" that I want. I trust the game to do whatever is appropriate, and feel confident enough that the reroll command will work if needed.
As for tables and spreadsheets, no I don't have any inside info, I've never been staff, and I don't have any friends with the code. I got the information from the help files on races, which very specifically instruct the reader which races get which bonuses. I have also gleaned hints from the various main guild helpfiles that -imply- certain bonuses will occur (such as - a warrior is likely to have better innate physical strength, than he is to have better innate agility, when compared to a ranger of the same race, height, age, and weight).
In addition there was some talk about stat changes in the past on the GDB, and the imms mentioned that guild played some part in the stat generation process.
Just because someone knows stuff, doesn't necessarily mean they have inside info, or IC info, or have been typing up spreadsheets. It -could- simply mean they have taken extra time to read the docs.
Quote from: mansa on September 24, 2008, 03:45:08 PM
Luckily, stats will increase now, so that's fantastic!
I just had my first experience with this and it's sooooooooooooo awesome.
Tables, spreadsheets? I don't even map...Heh. But I do read the docs.
As Lizzie pointed out, everything can be found there.
But basicly the Mansa stat system works, least for humans.
From the docs.
QuoteAs citizens of Zalanthas gain years of existence, their bodies begin to change to conform to their age. Generally, a person will grow stronger and tougher from adolescence until they hit their prime, gradually increasing their stamina and endurance. After this peak, they will begin to lose that strength and health slowly. Wisdom nearly peaks early in life and increases slowly until death, and agility peaks in adolescence and slowly decreases into old age.
That tells you everything you need to know to get at least better then ave stats every time.
So there is my inside information, grafts and logs, located at http://www.armageddon.org/help/index_frames.html (http://www.armageddon.org/help/index_frames.html)
Bwahaha.
I'm not saying if you're a good player you'll tough it out.
I'm saying if your stats are really unplayable, you can write to the imms, or store, and for the most part try to make concepts that are playable without excellent stats.
Personally, I never really understood why storing the occasional pc you really hated and who wasn't involved in things was so awful, but I'm willing to accept it is not allowed.
I do think that if you need every pc to have decent stats you might want to examine that. I don't agree. And yes Yam, I know I'm a lousy human being and a terrible elitist for saying so, but I'm kind to my mother, so I'm not irredeemable.
Yeah I'm not so concerned with "decent" stats - just playable, serviceable. If I'm playing a h-g with "below average" strength, I think I'll be able to manage somehow. Especially if he makes up for it with AI wisdom - which I would play as a h-g who is as bright as a h-g can get - that doesn't mean he's as smart as a human...but definitely smarter than the average bear :)
If I'm playing a ranger with "above average" agility, I'll be happy...even if his endurance is only "average." If I have a desert elf with "poor strength" though, I'll probably reroll. Cause a desert elf's strength already is weak...and it might be a convenient thing to at least be capable of carrying around a tent once in awhile, and not have to lose the waterskin and three pieces of meat in the process.
So really it depends on what I'm trying to accomplish with the character, combined with his race, combined with his actual coded skillset. If I just want my character to have a fair chance at survival, then a couple of averages and a couple of above averages is fine, and I'm -probably- not going to reroll. That's probably also why I don't bother prioritizing. I really just want survivability, and so far I've been satisfied with my initial roll, or using the "reroll self" option.
Quote from: Lizzie on September 24, 2008, 03:47:00 PM
I got the information from the help files on races, which very specifically instruct the reader which races get which bonuses.
Yes, they do. Bonuses relative to other races. But it's still the same average<->good within the race. At least for me.
The manipulations come for age, weight, height and who knows what other aspects, it appears, and we're always having people post about what marvellous stats some of their characters have had (which I read to mean exceptionally good and above) and how they never get crappy stats (below average or poor). I don't think there's any documentation about how to do that, other than recommending that characters begin at the middle of their age ranges (already verging on middle-age, in other words). From how young most characters are, it seems to me that most people don't do this.
I still play happily with my mostly average characters, but I do feel a twinge of annoyance now and then when people start bragging about this subject.
Quote from: Shiroi Tsuki on September 24, 2008, 10:27:59 AM
But it was cool, because he didn't last long anyway. Not due to death, or crappy stats, but because I wandered off to take a different role. One I would have taken regardless of his stats.
>:(
Quote from: Salt Merchant on September 24, 2008, 03:24:59 PM
Quote from: manonfireCrappy stats are completely avoidable.
Quote from: X-D on September 24, 2008, 10:40:36 AM
Stats in arm are only barely random even if you don't order your stats. It is a RARE day that I make a PC and I do not get nearly exactly the stats I expect to get...and by rare I mean it has happened 2 times in over 30 PCs, and I don't even order the stats.
Quote from: LizzieFortunately, the random roll isn't as random as it seems. There are bonuses and priorities placed automatically depending on what race/guild you pick.
It sounds like some people have made such a detailed study of this that they've constructed an actual table of stat allotments. Maybe as a collaborative effort? Or maybe it's just the benefit of having so many characters die that one creates so many that one finds this information out. Or maybe there are just that many staff and ex-staff characters in the game.
I don't know what wonderful tricks you've learned, but I don't like the fact that it can be reduced to a numbers game like this. As OOC knowledge, it can be used to gain an in-game advantage over players that plug along not using the tricks and getting average<->good stats nearly every time.
Sorry.
Quote from: mansa on September 24, 2008, 03:45:08 PM
Quote from: Salt Merchant on September 24, 2008, 03:24:59 PM
Quote from: manonfireCrappy stats are completely avoidable.
Quote from: X-D on September 24, 2008, 10:40:36 AM
Stats in arm are only barely random even if you don't order your stats. It is a RARE day that I make a PC and I do not get nearly exactly the stats I expect to get...and by rare I mean it has happened 2 times in over 30 PCs, and I don't even order the stats.
Quote from: LizzieFortunately, the random roll isn't as random as it seems. There are bonuses and priorities placed automatically depending on what race/guild you pick.
It sounds like some people have made such a detailed study of this that they've constructed an actual table of stat allotments. Maybe as a collaborative effort? Or maybe it's just the benefit of having so many characters die that one creates so many that one finds this information out. Or maybe there are just that many staff and ex-staff characters in the game.
I don't know what wonderful tricks you've learned, but I don't like the fact that it can be reduced to a numbers game like this. As OOC knowledge, it can be used to gain an in-game advantage over players that plug along not using the tricks and getting average<->good stats nearly every time.
My table of stats:
Characters age 23 and under - Terrible stats
Characters age 55 and older - Terrible stats.
Once you realize this, you learn to not expect good stats, and just flow with it. Your expectations are too high.
Luckily, stats will increase now, so that's fantastic!
Stats don't increase under the new system, from what I've noticed.
I had a PC start as young, and live for 20ish years to just a single year shy of mature, and the only stat which changed was agility, which went down.
If they do increase, it is only to a certain cap and never above it. But I don't think that's the case, cause I had a really low wisdom, which I would've expected to have ticked up at the same rate agility ticked down.
Quote from: Clearsighted on September 27, 2008, 06:05:32 PM
Stats don't increase under the new system, from what I've noticed.
I had a PC start as young, and live for 20ish years to just a single year shy of mature, and the only stat which changed was agility, which went down.
If they do increase, it is only to a certain cap and never above it. But I don't think that's the case, cause I had a really low wisdom, which I would've expected to have ticked up at the same rate agility ticked down.
Stats change, whether they increase or decrease, they are now moving with age. I've seen it.
Quote from: mansa on September 27, 2008, 06:13:54 PM
Quote from: Clearsighted on September 27, 2008, 06:05:32 PM
Stats don't increase under the new system, from what I've noticed.
I had a PC start as young, and live for 20ish years to just a single year shy of mature, and the only stat which changed was agility, which went down.
If they do increase, it is only to a certain cap and never above it. But I don't think that's the case, cause I had a really low wisdom, which I would've expected to have ticked up at the same rate agility ticked down.
Stats change, whether they increase or decrease, they are now moving with age. I've seen it.
Yep, moving down ;)
Quote from: Clearsighted on September 27, 2008, 06:20:19 PM
Quote from: mansa on September 27, 2008, 06:13:54 PM
Quote from: Clearsighted on September 27, 2008, 06:05:32 PM
Stats don't increase under the new system, from what I've noticed.
I had a PC start as young, and live for 20ish years to just a single year shy of mature, and the only stat which changed was agility, which went down.
If they do increase, it is only to a certain cap and never above it. But I don't think that's the case, cause I had a really low wisdom, which I would've expected to have ticked up at the same rate agility ticked down.
Stats change, whether they increase or decrease, they are now moving with age. I've seen it.
Yep, moving down ;)
Three stats of mine went up.
Quote from: Malken on September 27, 2008, 06:24:21 PM
Quote from: Clearsighted on September 27, 2008, 06:20:19 PM
Quote from: mansa on September 27, 2008, 06:13:54 PM
Quote from: Clearsighted on September 27, 2008, 06:05:32 PM
Stats don't increase under the new system, from what I've noticed.
I had a PC start as young, and live for 20ish years to just a single year shy of mature, and the only stat which changed was agility, which went down.
If they do increase, it is only to a certain cap and never above it. But I don't think that's the case, cause I had a really low wisdom, which I would've expected to have ticked up at the same rate agility ticked down.
Stats change, whether they increase or decrease, they are now moving with age. I've seen it.
Yep, moving down ;)
Three stats of mine went up.
Weird. Perhaps it is entirely random, or handled differently for non-humans. It's nice to hear that someone saw an improvement, though.
There are also degrees of the stats Clearsighted. I don't know how the numbers work in Arm, but they are numerical, in the code behind the text. So for example
Extremely Poor = 1-5
Poor = 6-10
Below Average = 11-15
Average = 16-20
Above Average = 21-25
Good = 26-30
Extremely Good = 31-35
Absolutely Incredible = 36-40
So if you get a bump up on Agility, and your agility -was- at the 26 end of Good...then it might still be at Good, but now be at the 30 ends of it. So it -will- improve, even if you aren't noticing a change in the wording.
Quote from: Clearsighted on September 27, 2008, 06:28:25 PM
Quote from: Malken on September 27, 2008, 06:24:21 PM
Three stats of mine went up.
Weird. Perhaps it is entirely random, or handled differently for non-humans. It's nice to hear that someone saw an improvement, though.
I had three stats go up. On a non-human.
Whether stats might go up or down is not a mystery. It's spelled out in
help aging.
QuoteAs citizens of Zalanthas gain years of existence, their bodies begin to change to conform to their age. Generally, a person will grow stronger and tougher from adolescence until they hit their prime, gradually increasing their stamina and endurance. After this peak, they will begin to lose that strength and health slowly. Wisdom nearly peaks early in life and increases slowly until death, and agility peaks in adolescence and slowly decreases into old age.
Yes Flurry, that part is clear. There's a new system that shifts stats. However Clearsighted stated he didn't notice any change, or that the stats seemed to -only- go down, and -never go up- when his character aged and was concerned that the new system wasn't working, or not working properly.
Though I'm not sure where I recall reading this (in one of the previous posts here in the Code Discussion board) Morgenes said that in the previous system, there was a "chance" age would affect a stat. So if for example your character turned from child to adult, there was chance that strength, endurance, and wisdom might increase, and a chance agility would go down. But nothing was for sure so you very well could end up with just agility going down as a result of aging, or nothing at all.
And now in the new system there is a 100 percent chance that every stat will change with age.
I believe that's the difference between now and before. And a nice difference it is ... since having it work the way it worked before (provided I'm not way off base) meant there was absolutely no point in playing a young character and living them into adulthood unless you planned on petitioning the staff for manual stat increases to reflect the fact that their strenth was below average when they were 15, but they've grown up a bit since then.
On a side note, I think it's a little extreme just how crappy strength and endurance are for a 15 year old, as I've known guys in highschool who were quite physically fit by adult standards at that age. It seems like the code thinks they're a 6 year old or something. Heh, I think a better development scale would be something like, let strength and endurance peek around 15 or 16, then slowly go up till the mid 30's, then slowly go down. Let agility peak around 13 or 14, stay that way till the mid 30's, then start to decrease, and have wisdom start out a little low but generally peak around 10 ... shoot down to less than half of that from age 13-19, and then go back up, then start increasing slowly with time ;D
But ... that's another topic. Sorry.
Quote from: musashi on September 28, 2008, 11:40:31 AM
On a side note, I think it's a little extreme just how crappy strength and endurance are for a 15 year old, as I've known guys in highschool who were quite physically fit by adult standards at that age. It seems like the code thinks they're a 6 year old or something. Heh, I think a better development scale would be something like, let strength and endurance peek around 15 or 16, then slowly go up till the mid 30's, then slowly go down. Let agility peak around 13 or 14, stay that way till the mid 30's, then start to decrease, and have wisdom start out a little low but generally peak around 10 ... shoot down to less than half of that from age 13-19, and then go back up, then start increasing slowly with time ;D
QFT.
My 15 year old PC is a weak retard with the constitution of a piece of rice paper. But he's got crazy monkey agility.
I know what you mean. Hopefully the new stat development code means that by the time he reaches 24-ish he should have grown into normal statistics though (but with the advantage that you've had that long to work his skills up in the meantime).
Has anyone suggested making stats go up(or possibly down) depending on skills that have a similar function? After six year in the Byn, my petite lass is going to end up being a bulky broad.
Say your combat skill reaches 50% of it's potential, this would increase your Strength stat by a small amount to show that yes, over years of training, you actually do gain muscle.
Sneak, hide, and sleight of hand skill capped out? There is no reason why you shouldn't have at least extremely good or above agility.
There must be a problem with a system like this that I'm not seeing though... I could see this making a good stat roll even more OP, but change the roll system to keep most beginning stats closer to average than what they are and I could see it working.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on October 04, 2008, 11:04:31 AM
Has anyone suggested making stats go up(or possibly down) depending on skills that have a similar function? After six year in the Byn, my petite lass is going to end up being a bulky broad.
Say your combat skill reaches 50% of it's potential, this would increase your Strength stat by a small amount to show that yes, over years of training, you actually do gain muscle.
Sneak, hide, and sleight of hand skill capped out? There is no reason why you shouldn't have at least extremely good or above agility.
There must be a problem with a system like this that I'm not seeing though... I could see this making a good stat roll even more OP, but change the roll system to keep most beginning stats closer to average than what they are and I could see it working.
Sounds like a very logical and appopriate suggestion.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on October 04, 2008, 11:04:31 AM
Sneak, hide, and sleight of hand skill capped out? There is no reason why you shouldn't have at least extremely good or above agility.
This here is the primary problem with your proposal. Actual skill is measure of the training and certain stats combined. You wouldn't have varying skill levels anymore, just people working to max out their skill
and their stats.
I could definitely see some utility in regard to the degeneration of stats through aging. Should a warrior who has trained all her life really drop to poor strength or agility due to the aging code? I don't think so. It would be nice if skills softened the decline of stats so that a very skilled person might not grow quite so infirm (i.e. very poor stats) in their old age.
The stat system does not need to be revamped. Read the help files.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on October 04, 2008, 11:04:31 AM
Has anyone suggested making stats go up(or possibly down) depending on skills that have a similar function? After six year in the Byn, my petite lass is going to end up being a bulky broad.
Say your combat skill reaches 50% of it's potential, this would increase your Strength stat by a small amount to show that yes, over years of training, you actually do gain muscle.
Sneak, hide, and sleight of hand skill capped out? There is no reason why you shouldn't have at least extremely good or above agility.
There must be a problem with a system like this that I'm not seeing though... I could see this making a good stat roll even more OP, but change the roll system to keep most beginning stats closer to average than what they are and I could see it working.
Because everyone will have pretty much the same stats after a certain amount of days played?
I think it would be a great idea if it limited how much your stats went up.
If you maxed, you should be atleast average in my opinion.
Quote from: Delstro on October 08, 2008, 08:53:38 PM
I think it would be a great idea if it limited how much your stats went up.
If you maxed, you should be atleast average in my opinion.
I have faith in Morgenes, and all his limits that he may implement in the gaming system. I know that he has played over 9000 variations of tabletop games and has memorized all of the variety of rules. I'm sure he's implemented enough factors into the stat system.
To solve all these problems I propose that we change the descriptors of stats to:
Kick-Ass, Awesome, Like Chuck Norris, Better than The Fonze, Hella-Good, Damn-Straight, Colt-45 and Bitchin'!
Then, to keep things interesting, these are dynamically assigned to the current Poor, Below Average, Average, Above Average, etc that we have now. So for one character Like Chuck Norris would actually be Average, but for the next character it would represent Very Good! Keep stat ordering in character generation. Now you can be better in somethings than in others based on your background, but when you type SCORE all your stats have cool descriptions!
Problem Solved!
Quote from: Bushranger on October 19, 2008, 09:07:26 PM
To solve all these problems I propose that we change the descriptors of stats to:
Kick-Ass, Awesome, Like Chuck Norris, Better than The Fonze, Hella-Good, Damn-Straight, Colt-45 and Bitchin'!
Then, to keep things interesting, these are dynamically assigned to the current Poor, Below Average, Average, Above Average, etc that we have now. So for one character Like Chuck Norris would actually be Average, but for the next character it would represent Very Good! Keep stat ordering in character generation. Now you can be better in somethings than in others based on your background, but when you type SCORE all your stats have cool descriptions!
Problem Solved!
This is actually a good idea.
I know that there is some variance in how 'good' 'good' actually is. AKA, two humans with good strength don't neccesarily have the same strength.
What if there were less categories, and more breathing room?
You could have something like:
Average - You are joe shmoe. You can lift a heavy sword, but you can't pick up a boulder. You can outsmart a child, but there are definitely smarter people than you. You can run for a few miles, but then you run out of breath. It can contain Poor, Below Average, and Average.
Above Average - You are better than joe shmoe, but not by much. This could contain good, very good, and extremely good. It could even dip down into Average, or up into Exceptional.
Exceptional - This could contain exceptional and AI, and maybe even a stat HIGHER than AI. GODLIKE. YES. It could even dip down into extremely good, and very good.
I think it would provide less character suicides if the stats were, well, better rounded and more vague. You then will have to pragmatically test your strength, endurance, intelligence, whatever, ICly.
"Oh, I can pick up a 200 stone pack. Wow."
"Oh, I can't pick up a 200 stone pack. Alright."
"Oh, I have this much health."
"Oh, I can cast this many spells before my mana runs out."
"I learn at a modest pace."
"Wow, I learn really fast!"
Dunno. Just a thought.
Don't forget the perks to being older and more skillful. So that newbie warrior can get ferocious hits on foes...does he do it all the time? Hardly. When your experienced warrior can dance around the same foe hitting half a dozen times, there should be a serious amount of RP respect offered by said beefcake newbie. Was Mr. Miyagi a heavy-hitter.....seems unlikely. But a suped up 'roid monkey would be a fool not to defer to his greater skill. (Just a silly example)
I just wanted to add that, with my new PC, I actually got frustrated that, even after a reroll, my strength and wisdom were a lot less than I was hoping, in comparison to my agility and endurance. Then I realized something;
Thats almost exactly how his background and mdesc would describe him. Not very smart, or strong, but quick, and able to prolong a fight.
Sometimes random stats are amazing and work out just so well.
I'm wondering if the stats are rigged. All my characters have backgrounds and descriptions that suit the stats perfectly. I made an excellent character this time (whom I didn't expect to last long), and everything fits her description. She's a quick one, able to dodge trouble, and manipulate others, but a skinny one.
I did get bad stats for one character, but a reroll made everything nice. Also, I find stats don't really matter at all in the late game, I've seen an old man beat a fully-armed half-giant with a training club. They're more of a crutch to support which direction your character is going early on. If I can't use big swords, I learn to small daggers. If my character's wise, I get her to act smart, and so on. If he's big, dumb, then I'd plan the character's development that way.
Only exception are the criminal skills, since you can't really practice those :P
Oh, BTW, one of my characters started off 19 y.o., stats are exceptional, very good, good, below average. Who says young people were weak? Didn't matter anyway, she died a horribly stupid death.
Quote from: audrey on November 12, 2008, 12:07:47 AM
Oh, BTW, one of my characters started off 19 y.o., stats are exceptional, very good, good, below average. Who says young people were weak? Didn't matter anyway, she died a horribly stupid death.
Play a couple more characters.
I just want to say, that as an avid skateboarder at the age of 28, my agility is still only going up up up!
The brain can only become more developed, controlled and precise... it's like saying mastery of a skill isn't directly linked with mastery of the body. My muscles are the same size as I was when I was 18 and I'm the same weight, but I continue to develop greater control as the smaller more refined muscles become toned and strong enough to accomplish what I demand. I seriously can't lift weights and get stronger or gain weight becase of my conditioning.
I'm totaly against the age+skill system and think it should be more dependant on how much and what kind of food your character eats, what they do to get the food and somehow let nature sort it out with how much karma you have and choice of starting location. Make it all sekret!
Quote from: Versu on June 29, 2009, 01:02:23 AM
I just want to say, that as an avid skateboarder at the age of 28, my agility is still only going up up up!
The brain can only become more developed, controlled and precise... it's like saying mastery of a skill isn't directly linked with mastery of the body. My muscles are the same size as I was when I was 18 and I'm the same weight, but I continue to develop greater control as the smaller more refined muscles become toned and strong enough to accomplish what I demand.
Once you stop growing, the body is in a constant state of decay. You can keep yourself limber and healthy, and you can improve your physical mastery by
learning more about your capabilities. But to suggest that your physical dexterity is improving despite being over the bio-hill is silly. Your ability to predict your muscle responses and then employ their strength in just the right manner is vastly mental, with the muscles only keeping up with the demands you place on them. As age increases past maturity, so does general decrepitude, and it's not really even something that can be argued...the few rare folks who maintain very good health into their old age do so by learning, not by the continued growth of their physique.
I don't think the problem is the way stats are assigned as much as it is the way stats function. In one MUD I play, stats work completely differently from Arm, and in a way, they're superior in function because they keep characters balanced and interesting.
For instance, high strength doesn't automatically give you great damage rolls. All damage rolls are kept at a standard, with the actual damage dependent on the weapon and your skill level. Strength determines your skill cap for particular weapons and skills, so you won't be dishing out high damage right from the get-go.
I think something like this could certainly work in Arm. High strength characters will have the ability to excel at strength-based weapons, but from the beginning they're not going to hit that well.
TLDR; have damage dependent on skill, and have skill levels dependent on stats.
However, since we ARE discussing how stats are assigned, I think a point buy system similar to some roleplaying games would work well. Increasing stats becomes exponentially more expensive points-wise, and you can have the option of decreasing certain stats for a small point bonus. Add in racial modifiers after the fact and you're all set. This way character stats can reflect what the player wants them to be, and if you follow my previous example, you won't have to worry about 30 beefcake warriors with max height and weight because, while they're stronger than Hercules, they can't swing that greataxe worth a damn.
It seems a bit counterintuitive that high strength PCs wouldn't hit harder fresh out of the box. I wouldn't mind a system that takes some of what you suggest into account, though, especially in regards to 'high strength' weapons–I think that weapons should be flaggable as being more or less dependent on strength or agility (such that high-strength or high-agility characters would see more of a bonus for using a weapon meant for the strong or agile, and likewise low-strength or low-agility characters would see more of a penalty for using an inappropriate weapon.)
If having wicked agility meant you kicked more ass with, say, whips and lightsabers and three-part-staves, or whatever, this might help a bit with the 'strength is too important for combat PCs' problem. This would have to be carefully balanced, though, as agility's other-than-damage bonuses (attack speed, defense bonus, etc.) might turn out outweighing strength's (ability to wear heavy armor).
I still don't see there being much of a huge problem in 1.Arm, though. The weapons are primitive; there isn't much room for 'finesse fighters' when the stock weapons are stone hammers and mek-bone battleaxes. Don't get me started on the obsidian razors...
I've come to believe that stats are fine, and with prioritizing, it's pretty hard to not get a VG in your main stat, unless you do a crazy age. And with the exception of desert elves, every single other karma role, class or race is more or less immune to stats mattering at all.
In fact, there are only three classes, all karma 0, where someone can make a strong case of stats mattering, and that's doing a basic ranger, warrior or assassin, in more or less that order. Without getting into no-no stuff, the warrior class can actually acquire certain capabilities after a while which really do make even strength unimportant, and if they live that long, they will rock everyone regardless. But it does hurt a ranger/assassin to get a very low roll, and it hurts a ranger much more than an assassin, who can also eventually overcome it with the stuff they eventually get.
So. Leave stats as is.
I love Amrageddon's stat system. The only change I would like see made is being able to undo a reroll, so you can chose the best of two sets of stats instead of taking a gamble at getting something better.
Here here, i second fw's words.
Eh, I could comb over the stat system and outline what might be better, but I'm lazy.
As my life consumes my time more and more.
I find have less and less time to play.
This means to me two things: One: I don't have the time to play, and Two: I'd love to advance/be awesome with the time I do have to play.
This leads me to hate rolling some crappy stats. For the time being I do not mind, when I'm in my first week and who knows whats going to happen. But if I do fall in love with a character, and they just have shitty stats for what they're supposed to be a "Warrior" with below average strength when he's supposed to be "a hulking hulkster" ect.
I think a bit of customization would be wonderful. You write a background, and a bio of your character to even have it be able to be played, and then, after the supposed 20 first years of your life, you're unable to cater yourself based on those previous 20 years? Guy works out for 20 years and has shitty strength? Really?
Guy stretches and does jumping jacks, climbs walls, and was just born naturally athletic, and has below average agility? Because of a random roll?
It kinda confuses me.
I admittedly only read the last two pages of this thread, but I do like the stats system we have now, and I am also very happy with Morgenes' implements.
No matter what your stats are, you can be good at shit. I have this thing for not living long, so yes, like anyone else, I'd love to see all my stats roll AI. But I've played enough to notice its very intriguing to roleplay your stats out. I had a character who hit like a bahamet, but learned slowly, and was average agility. His thing was physical intimidation but I would roleplay out his obvious lack of speed. I don't know, flaws in characters make this game for me. I wouldn't play if everyone was a beast at everything they do, like me in real life. ;)
Anyways, seriously, like all things in the game, of course it could be improved upon. But I have seen my stats increase, when I am lucky enough to have my characters age a couple of years. I think it would be very cool, if the imms had the time, to see stat improvements reflect the characters day to day actions.
For instance if a character does nothing but physically work out, jog around the city with a pack of rocks on their back, roelplay out doing push ups and crunches and shit... BOOM. They age a year and their strength goes up. But that would mean hell of work for our imms, and I don't know if they love brainz that much -
Quote from: Aruven on October 07, 2009, 03:31:30 PM
No matter what your stats are, you can be good at shit.
This is, in some instances, not true.
Stats matter, but not so much as you progress through your character. Eventually you outgrow their necessity, just as uber-warrior outgrows the need to use weapons on bahamet, or awesome-elf to actually wear armor against a city's army.
The key word is 'eventually'
As for stats going up as you age, that doesn't always happen, or happens so slowly that it's not noticeable. I've had a few characters age a couple of years, and only one of them had an actual noticeable change.
That said, I'm all for an idea someone suggested. We should be given the choice to undo our reroll if we don't like it. That, combined with the stat prioritization, makes stats random enough for most, yet gives people some semblance of a chance at having a 'playable' character.
Quote from: AreteX on October 07, 2009, 02:39:01 PM
Guy stretches and does jumping jacks, climbs walls, and was just born naturally athletic, and has below average agility? Because of a random roll?
Perhaps, knowing that stat rolls are dependent on chance, you should not write backgrounds which require specific stat levels.
Quote from: AreteX on October 07, 2009, 02:39:01 PM
Guy stretches and does jumping jacks, climbs walls, and was just born naturally athletic, and has below average agility? Because of a random roll?
It's very unlikely that the stat you said was most important will be "below average" on both your first and second rolls, barring major age modifiers.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on October 07, 2009, 11:27:13 PM
Quote from: AreteX on October 07, 2009, 02:39:01 PM
Guy stretches and does jumping jacks, climbs walls, and was just born naturally athletic, and has below average agility? Because of a random roll?
It's very unlikely that the stat you said was most important will be "below average" on both your first and second rolls, barring major age modifiers.
But it's definitely possible. In fact, it's possible to do multiple times in a row!
I'd rely on jstorrie's advice rather than trusting in the unlikelihood of bad stat rolls.
So, because of random stat rolls I need to limit my background story for a character concept? What? Why?
Shouldn't I be able to come into this fantasy world, and as long as it sticks to documentation, roll up ANY idea I possibly want? If I want to play a 30yr old grizzled traveling ranger who has seen it all, describe a 15 page bio entry and make up an incredible background story...
I mean, I dunno, that just sounds like a cop out to me. I don't like the idea of being limited because of random stats, something hard-coded in a game of roleplay.
I don't even care about stats, I've never had a character that was really combat oriented, or one that felt like stats were a hinderance. I generally roleplay my way to power, or control ect. But I am just saying... it would be annoying to one-day fall in love with a concept, write it up, dream about it, get that application acceptance and log into the game with poor in a main stat.
Just sayin.
Quote from: AreteX on October 08, 2009, 02:36:49 PM
But I am just saying... it would be annoying to one-day fall in love with a concept, write it up, dream about it, get that application acceptance and log into the game with poor in a main stat.
Just sayin.
If you prioritize with the main stat first and the character wouldn't have poor in that stat naturally (i.e. because they were very young or very, very old or any other particular reason) then this would not happen.
Brandon
Quote from: AreteX on October 08, 2009, 02:36:49 PM
Shouldn't I be able to come into this fantasy world, and as long as it sticks to documentation, roll up ANY idea I possibly want? If I want to play a 30yr old grizzled traveling ranger who has seen it all, describe a 15 page bio entry and make up an incredible background story...
For concepts requiring a certain level of eliteness, you can always send in a special application to get bumps in the area needed.
Also, incredible background stories always help when filing a spec app. :D
Quote from: AreteX on October 08, 2009, 02:36:49 PM
So, because of random stat rolls I need to limit my background story for a character concept? What? Why?
Because if you don't you may end up with stats that don't work.
QuoteShouldn't I be able to come into this fantasy world, and as long as it sticks to documentation, roll up ANY idea I possibly want? If I want to play a 30yr old grizzled traveling ranger who has seen it all, describe a 15 page bio entry and make up an incredible background story...
No. You can roll up any idea which is possible to build with the same parts everyone else has to use. If you want to play a grizzled and experienced ranger, then you can special app one.
Quote
I mean, I dunno, that just sounds like a cop out to me. I don't like the idea of being limited because of random stats, something hard-coded in a game of roleplay.
Well, those hard-coded stats help determine whether your PC will win or lose when he comes into conflict with my PC, so... tough.
QuoteI don't even care about stats, I've never had a character that was really combat oriented, or one that felt like stats were a hinderance. I generally roleplay my way to power, or control ect. But I am just saying... it would be annoying to one-day fall in love with a concept, write it up, dream about it, get that application acceptance and log into the game with poor in a main stat.
As pointed out above, the situations in which you could get a poor in your main stat are both rare and foreseeable. If you're in love with a character concept and feel that certain levels of stats are necessary to play it, then special app it. You'll probably be given it.
Just because something is contextually plausible in the world doesn't mean it's allowed in this game. I was briefly angered when first I realized this.
This game is a delicate balance of several things. One consequence of this balance is that we are able to ensnare, eat the brainz of, and sometimes convert to our cause young teenaged males.
I'm not overly pressed on stats. One of my (top 2) favorite characters had stats that were so low they would make most of you laugh.
That being said, I detect a fair amount of hypocrisy in this thread.
Some of us are being honest about the fact that yes, every now and then, we like to play character with jacked stats and that, no we usually don't have much fun if we get the urge to play a bad-assed warrior but we're stuck with a character that will, realistically speaking, never have that potential to improve above the level of crap.
In response to that, quite a few players are responding with variations of "stats don't matter, it's how you role-play" and meanwhile the people who are saying this are playing templars, muls and krathi. Honestly, I wish they'd spare us the lecture because it's not like they're lecturing a group of power-gamers who don't know how to role-play, they're lecturing a group of role-players who spend way too much time on the bottom of a pyramid because they're playing warriors with crap stats.
Unless your character is really, really old, the aging code will balance your shit out nicely.
If you live that long.
It's tough surviving when the code dishes you out 70 hps.
I think endurance us underutilized in stat priorities.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on October 10, 2009, 07:58:39 PM
If you live that long.
It's not that hard to do if you follow the mud's advice on age selection and if you prioritize properly.
??? Doesn't a year IG time take a month and a half RL time? So mutiple years to balance out your stats would be multiple months
I think I've had a handful of characters live that long, regardless of stats.
Ah, true enough I guess....
But still, pretty much the only way to get any stats below average in the first place is to make a character really old/young, and improper prioritization in accordance to age and class/race selection.
Yeah I'm just arguing for the sake of it.
I don't agree that bad stats happen due to extremes in age and priority alone. In truth, I've had the character gen sit me with something like poor below average poor average on a perfectly situation for class/race/role stat priority. Rerolled into pretty much the same thing. Some times, the bones don't roll like you want them to. And for what its worth, there's no question at all that stats have a *massive* impact on play for any coded activity, but that doesn't mean the character is going to be totally worthless.
boooooo stats
Quote from: Jingo on October 13, 2009, 05:16:42 PM
boooooo stats
hahahaha... oh I know the feeling well my friend.
Brandon
Your strength is very good, your agility is extremely good,
your wisdom is exceptional, and your endurance is extremely good.
My fear of getting stats like the above on a character planned to be a throwaway is why I don't make throwaways.
But if you don't make throw away's you never get stats like that. Ginka can sense these things.
Quote from: musashi on October 13, 2009, 08:53:27 PM
But if you don't make throw away's you never get stats like that. Ginka can sense these things.
No kidding. Back in my early Arm career, when I only played throw-aways, almost every single character of mine had amazing stats.
Not so much anymore.
Yep. I wonder if it's an algorithm that just checks the length of your character description and background, and gives that an inverse relation to your stat rolls to make the more you care about the concept, the worse the rolls turn out.
Quote from: musashi on October 14, 2009, 03:19:20 AM
Yep. I wonder if it's an algorithm that just checks the length of your character description and background, and gives that an inverse relation to your stat rolls to make the more you care about the concept, the worse the rolls turn out.
No joke. My longest-lived, best-statted character had an mdesc and a biography that were each a grand total of four sentences long.
Well...there's something to be said for conciseness (especially in mdescs!). Perhaps the game is trying to endorse it? ;)
Playing a character with bad stats is not fun.
Quote from: Yam on October 17, 2009, 03:48:12 AM
Playing a character with bad stats is not fun.
Some of my favorite characters have had one or more stats that were pathetic. Actually, I can't think of a single character I've had with awesome stats that ended up memorial. One character had stats that were across-the-board abysmal, to the point where there were severe playability issues. Worst stats I've ever seen; I strongly considered a second hour suicide. But I ended up having plenty of fun, due mostly to his clan leader and peers.
The circumstances my PCs are in seem to count a lot more than the character's stats, as far as fun is concerned.
Am I the only one that uses wisdom as a dump stat anymore?
The way I figure it, if I get a character with decent strength, agility, and endurance, I can manage to make him last for a good while..... So I'm a-okay with learning at a snail's pace.
But that's just me.
-shrug-
Quote from: Qzzrbl on October 17, 2009, 08:12:37 AM
Am I the only one that uses wisdom as a dump stat anymore?
The way I figure it, if I get a character with decent strength, agility, and endurance, I can manage to make him last for a good while..... So I'm a-okay with learning at a snail's pace.
But that's just me.
-shrug-
Excluding certain exceptions, I'm in agreement with you. I know one player (a few years back), who had eg for every stat except for below average wisdom.
They suicided.
...
Quote from: Qzzrbl on October 17, 2009, 08:12:37 AM
Am I the only one that uses wisdom as a dump stat anymore?
The way I figure it, if I get a character with decent strength, agility, and endurance, I can manage to make him last for a good while..... So I'm a-okay with learning at a snail's pace.
But that's just me.
-shrug-
It would be interesting if wisdom actually affected your skill caps in a global fashion. I suspect something would have to be done about skill branch points if this happened, though.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on October 17, 2009, 08:12:37 AM
Am I the only one that uses wisdom as a dump stat anymore?
The way I figure it, if I get a character with decent strength, agility, and endurance, I can manage to make him last for a good while..... So I'm a-okay with learning at a snail's pace.
But that's just me.
-shrug-
I've dumped everything but endurance, depending on the character concept. Endurance is the one thing I don't think I could stand having a Poor in, regardless of the character.
I dump endurance because I like to live on the edge.
I just play people under the age of 35 and let Ginka dump Strength and Endurance for me automatically ... because that's just how I roll. 70 hps FTMFW.
:'(