Armageddon General Discussion Board

Here is my idea:

I do not think below average should exist.  And I especially do not think poor should exist.  Stats are mostly random and I understand that certain ages are not going to be as good as some, and perhaps even weight effects stats but for the most part they are random.  And by random I mean that IMMs do not base your stats or effect your stats based on description, it's codedly based on guild, maybe height and weight, race and subguild.  (As far as I can gather).

Now!  I have played a few races, and I know race effects stats because you can have a human with good strength that can pull a certain bow and an elf with good strength who can't go anywhere near pulling that same bow.  And it says in the docs elves -are- weaker.  So even if the stats say good, elves are still weaker.  Since some races are already weaker the actual stat doesn't have anything to do with it.  So that is already taken care of despite the stats you get.

Below average is not a death sentance.  You can play characters like that, and sometimes you get a below average stat that you don't necessarily rely on like a magicker who get below average strength would not be affected by that very much, but a magicker with below average-poor wisdom?  Ouch.  Now yes, you can reroll, but somtimes you reroll and you get the SAME or WORSE stats.  This has happened to me many many times.

Now, this is my point.  Below average, poor stats are not necessary and they are not fair.  It's just like if you have a big burly warrior with poor strength.  It hurts the character, and you intentions to roleplay.  Now I'm not saying that if someone says they are big and muscular in their desc should get kick ass stats, but I'm just saying that below average, wounds someone and their character in an unecessary way.  If you have average stats and someone else already has absolutely incredible and exceptional and extremely good (I have seen some pretty awesome stats) Then luck variates that they are already going to have an extremely high advantage over the other person.  Average starts you out with potential, but starting out with below average starts you out two steps back.  In fact it can hinder and will hinder the character their entire "lives" forever setting them a step back from everyone else.  It's just a random damper on the character that is completely unfair.  It's just like knocking the character way back into helplessness causing unnecessary struggle.

Even children, the lowest age you can be is thirteen and some children have grown up with a harsh life.  And if you are say an elf or half elf, your strength is already going to be set back, but then to get poor or below average role?  How would that person even have survived?  And likewise, there are supposed to be some bonuses to some people and I have noticed that stat role is so random that many times it doesn't even fit the bill.

Take below average and poor out, it's unfair and it really is a dissappointment and totally uneccesary.  There is no reason every character should not start out any less then average, so that they may purse their goals, or lack of them with the potential to at least, learn and fight in an average way.  But to make someone a below average character randomly and at times even make their character unplayable or unable to be played as intended, I don't think that should be an option to people.

Poor is a long way down and so is below average from something like an absolutely incredible stat. A -long- way down.  About nine stat classes down from Poor to Absolutely Incredible.  What a disadvantage! I don't think this would provide for some boost in stats.  Eliminating two stat options while about seven others remain it would just even the playing field a bit.

If you didn't have "below average" then "average" would become "below average".  Think about it.

We're not doing this.

The thing is, average would become the new poor and above average would be below average. Maybe not in title, but wouldn't it be exactly the same?

Edit: Damn you, Halasturd.

You know they used to have a very poor, but they took it out because too many people complained when they got a very poor stat.    I'm sure the level of strength (wisdom, etc)  still exists, they just made it say poor instead.

Quote from: "grog"You know they used to have a very poor, but they took it out because too many people complained when they got a very poor stat.    I'm sure the level of strength still exists, they just made it say poor instead.

No we didn't.

Quote from: "Halaster"

Quote from: "grog"You know they used to have a very poor, but they took it out because too many people complained when they got a very poor stat.    I'm sure the level of strength still exists, they just made it say poor instead.

No we didn't.

You mean you actually took it entirely?  I loved very poor!

I think Halaster means there never was a very poor stat.

Quote from: "Halaster"If you didn't have "below average" then "average" would become "below average".  Think about it.

We're not doing this.

That is true in a way.  Average would be the lowest stat, but that's my point.  Having an average stat is still codedly better then having a below average stat.  It's average.  Why have the potential to start someone BELOW average or poor.  That is just saying oh well, you are going to have to suck in that area and struggle harder then anyone else.  Tough roll.  At least let the person be average, so ... like I said.  The playing field is even.

Why stop there?  Take out "average" too, and then we can be like Lake Wobegon.   :wink:

Just roll with it, I say.  My longest lived PC started out with three poor stats, in a combat role.

Quote from: "flurry"Why stop there?  Take out "average" too, and then we can be like Lake Wobegon.   :wink:

Just roll with it, I say.  My longest lived PC started out with three poor stats, in a combat role.

What a great argument, how did I not see this coming, people just saying why don't we let everyone be great.

No, I'm not saying that.  I'm saying why not just let people be average.

Why make them below average, randomly based on nothing to do with their character.  If I am below average in biology in school, I am failing and hence I suck.  Why make characters inherently suck.  Why -not- even the playing field.

IRL, my wisdom is unbelieveable :twisted: but my all other stats are poor. I didn't choose it to be this way. It was rolled by God.
Life's harsh, Arm's harsher. Long live poor stats.

Some of us are crazy enough to actually enjoy having poor stats.

It gives you an immediate weakness/hook to roleplay off of.

Quote from: "Cenghiz"Long live poor stats.

Is there any reason why you love poor stats other then the fact that Halaster already said they weren't going to be taken away?  Just curious.

Yeah... I just know that whenever people look at stats they are hoping for poor.

And without Poor, my Exeptionals don't look so good.

Bebop, no matter how you set the scale, something is still going to be lowest, and therefore least desired.

This whole argument is silly.

I would just like to avoid situations like this...I dont know how to accomplish it...I would just like to figure out a way to avoid it.



The skinny, blue-eyed man picks up a wooden chest.

The skinny blue-eyed man says to the massive, muscular man in sirihish
"Hey big boy, get that other chest for me will you"

The massive, muscular man bends down to pick up the chest and heaves against it, it dosent move.

Easily hefting up his identical wooden chest the skinny, blue-eyed man says to the massive, muscular man in sirhish
"Back problems again I see Haunch?"

The massive, muscular man simple nods and steps back from the chest.

The skinny, blue-eye man picks up the second chest and walks off with it easily.


You get the picture...Its hard to rp having that slow poke elf or that puny gigantic muscular fellow....You can only have the same old back problem so many times before roleplaying it becomes flat stupid.

Anyways I just wish we could find a solution to having to face these types of situations.

As for taking out below average and poor...I dont think this is a bad idea...Noone wants to make a pc just to have poor wisdom, I play the game to have fun and when I get a below average or poor stat even though I stay with the character and make the best of it...In the back of my mind it is always eating at me to know that I am basically walking up hill...taking two steps forward and one step back so to speak...While if my stats were all atleast average I wouldnt have this sense of being crippled, which isnt very fun for me personally.

That is why we get to order our stats.

The stat ordering thang should help avoid those situations to some extent.

Quote from: "Jherlen"Bebop, no matter how you set the scale, something is still going to be lowest, and therefore least desired.

This whole argument is silly.

It's not about being more or less desirable.  That is not what this post is about.

It is about the fact that some people randomly are set at one extreme of with pathetic stats, while others are set to the other of godly.  The stats are totally random despite the characters potential or who they are as chosen by their background.  I think that the playing field should be evened slightly so that some people are not forced into inherit patheticness.  But maybe that's just me.  I'm sorry, I didn't realize everyone else liked being at a disadvantage, not being able to fight creatures with shells because their blows bounced off, or being surpassed in their clans by someone who just joined while they've been there a year because they have below average stats.  Yeah, I know all you guys love being set at an unfair disadvantage.   :roll:

Quote from: "Maybe42or54"That is why we get to order our stats.

Wha?  When is this going to be implemented?

QuoteThat is why we get to order our stats.

How do you go about doing this?

I hate it when my mage's wisdom is even average, but poor endurance? Fine! I make up a constant sickness and my char tries to find a cure to it via magick.
I hate it when my warrior has even average strength but poor wisdom? Good.. I make up a fool. I make the char's lack of wisdom visible for both my entertainment and others'.
Sometimes 'poor's are fun to play. When you don't power play, it's simply a role you play and 'poor's don't matter. I remember a half-giant of mine with 'poor', 'poor', 'below average', 'poor' and it was the funniest role I played. Just think of it, why do you want 'average'?
It's realistic? Nah. A usual community always includes 'poor's. It makes your role impossible? Wish up.. Imms correct it if necessary. It makes you powerplay with more difficulty? Then go find a powerplay MUD for yourself.

Long live poor stats.

My favorite part is when those petite maidens with VG strength are picking up chests and barrels to carry around the city with them.

I really don't have anything to add to this discussion (other than that my favorite character had terrible stats and to request that you kindly suck it  up and roll with them) I just get a kick out of those petite maidens every  time.

So what you're arguing is that we reduce the range of the scale by chopping off the lower portions.

Using numbers instead of adjectives works better for this kind of thing. Let's say the range of stats right now is 1 (extreme low end of poor) to 25 (extreme high end of AI).

You want to adjust the stat scale so that the values for below average are no longer assigned, so that now the scale goes from 5 (extreme low end of average) to 25.

Point is that relatively, a stat of 5 is going to be much lower than 25, and people with stats of 5 will not be able to do things people with higher stats can. This, to them, will seem unfair, and they will whine about having lower stats just like you are.

Unless we wanted to reduce the stat ranges considerably, making everyone have more or less the same stats, this is pointless. The important thing is that all stat ranges are playable -- characters with lower stats are going to be at disadvantages, but not crippling ones (like being too weak to use a weapon, too stupid to cast a spell, too slow to pick up an object, etc.) And they are.

Quote from: "Rhyden"I think Halaster means there never was a very poor stat.

If there was never a very poor stat, then my desert elf that started with all very poor was more bugged then I thought.

Quote from: "Bebop"

It is about the fact that some people randomly are set at one extreme of with pathetic stats, while others are set to the other of godly.  The stats are totally random despite the characters potential or who they are as chosen by their background.  I think that the playing field should be evened slightly so that some people are not forced into inherit patheticness.  But maybe that's just me.  I'm sorry, I didn't realize everyone else liked being at a disadvantage, not being able to fight creatures with shells because their blows bounced off, or being surpassed in their clans by someone who just joined while they've been there a year because they have below average stats.  Yeah, I know all you guys love being set at an unfair disadvantage.   :roll:

The system may be unfair for particular characters (just like RL) but it is fair for all players.  One character you might get below average stats, the next might get fantastic stats, so over time it works out average for everyone.

If particular stats are important for the character concept, you can manipulate the odds a bit.  If you create a character who is young, short, and light they will probably have good agility but bad strength and endurance.  If you make her 30, of middle height and weight, then she will tend to be well rounded.  If you make her old, then she will probably have better wisdom but her physical stats will suffer.  It certainly doesn't guarantee getting what you want, but it does increase your odds.  If your stats still come out awful, you can always gamble on a reroll.


You are not your character.  Your character isn't even a person.  Things may not be fair for your character, but they are fair for you.


Angela Christine

This is the same as asking for the game to be easier to win.

Easier, at least.

I hate these arguments of stats...

Why? Because half the player base comes out with the same lame argument.
"Play a weak warrior, a stupid mage or a sickly ranger! Come on it will be fun! Role playing failure is fun! WEEEE! FUN!"  The reality is... its only fun to the other people who surpass your character in every way.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to play a strapping handsome warrior with the strength of a 19 men and the body of a god.  Why? Because we all log on for the same reason.  To be somebody else and play a role.  Honestly, I don't log on to play Mr weak half elf so that your character can beat on him in sparring.

I'm all in favor of poor or awesome stats, if only it where realistic.  The mind and body are fluid things, they aren't "stuck" at a certain potential or even a certain capacity.  Unless disease or deformity, but even then, a strong will can find ways around such problems.
Everyone is born weak, crying, and fleshy.

I always wished that stats and skills were tied together.  Honestly do we need stats that much? Why can't skills also represent the physical(or mental) capacity to be proficient in said task?

A sword master is not only skillful with a sword, such training brings with it endurance and strength.  It is only a natural progression of such a life style.

Just because some body wants to play the role of strong sword master, doesn't make them a bad role player.  Stop treating players who just want their characters to do well like their some type of evil twink.

And if you like playing those sickly weak stupid characters... more power to you.  But thats not everyones wish, nor does it make them bad role players because they don't want to play a role they don't like.

I've never played a merchant, pickpocket, or burglar?  Does that make me a bad role player? I believe I'm some where on my 10th character.  Should everyone be "required" to play a merchant? I mean the world is not filled with warriors and rangers.  Is it bad form to dislike the role that doesn't involve combat?

Think about it.  We all log on to be different people, to play different roles.  Why would anyone aspire to be mediocre in their virtual lives too?  Average people with average minds, and average bodies, with average skills don't really get into extraordinary situations.

I ramble.  I've never had to deal with my stats, in fact I try not to give them a second look over.  Luckily I've never felt the need to email the mud with logs of my training.  I can only speculate how hard it is to get stats change for the better.

I don't know if I like the thought of removing lower range stats. It would be weird if everyone in the whole world was average or better at everything. Stat ordering would be good, but I'd prefer if it's one or maybe two stats that you can order, so that you can't completely tailor your character, but can still avoid the "huge, muscular man with poor strength" syndrome. Something that would be awesome was if we could write our descs after seeing our stats, but I don't really see a way for this to be possible, both code-wise and because people would abuse it to hunt stats if they could see them before entering the game.

I do agree that getting a character with poor-poor-below avg-poor sucks. Not that I've tried, but unless your goal is purely social-rp with no fighting or otherwise coded ability, having pathetic stats will be very detrimental for the enjoyment of the player. Some people may like to have some flaw that they can use as a character trait, but in a game with permadeath and great danger lurking around every corner, I can see why people with truly rubbish stats feel that it's unfair. Maybe make it so that you'll never get more than one or maybe two poor stats?

As for the "very poor" stat - as far as I've been told, it used to exist, but was merged with "poor", so that it's now just a larger range.

Quote from: "Hymwen"
As for the "very poor" stat - as far as I've been told, it used to exist, but was merged with "poor", so that it's now just a larger range.

That's what I thought too, but according to Halaster there is a problem somewhere in that statement.   Maybe it was the "Because players complained part"

I like the stats just the way they are but I must say that the idea of ordering stats is gonna get you the same result everytime.. it'll make all guilds more uniform and I dislike that. all assasins, pickpockets and burglars are gonna pick agility.. all warriors are gonna pick strength.. all those who are magickers would pick wisdom.. I'm sure there are a few exceptions but it's gonna limit the diversity of the playerbase.

Quote from: "Wykydtronn"I hate these arguments of stats...

Why? Because half the player base comes out with the same lame argument.
"Play a weak warrior, a stupid mage or a sickly ranger! Come on it will be fun! Role playing failure is fun! WEEEE! FUN!"  The reality is... its only fun to the other people who surpass your character in every way.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to play a strapping handsome warrior with the strength of a 19 men and the body of a god.  Why? Because we all log on for the same reason.  To be somebody else and play a role.  Honestly, I don't log on to play Mr weak half elf so that your character can beat on him in sparring.

Just because some body wants to play the role of strong sword master, doesn't make them a bad role player.  Stop treating players who just want their characters to do well like their some type of evil twink.

And if you like playing those sickly weak stupid characters... more power to you.  But thats not everyones wish, nor does it make them bad role players because they don't want to play a role they don't like.

I've never played a merchant, pickpocket, or burglar?  Does that make me a bad role player? I believe I'm some where on my 10th character.  Should everyone be "required" to play a merchant? I mean the world is not filled with warriors and rangers.  Is it bad form to dislike the role that doesn't involve combat?

Think about it.  We all log on to be different people, to play different roles.  Why would anyone aspire to be mediocre in their virtual lives too?  Average people with average minds, and average bodies, with average skills don't really get into extraordinary situations.

Freaking exactly. Even average can be a hinderance.  That is the only thing I'm saying is that people should not be forced to start out two steps back as far as their stats go with below average.  You can still enjoy the player sure but you are going to be hindered for the duration of that character while other surpass you.  Average, is average.  It has nothing to do with fancy numbers.  I say keep the stats how they are just eliminate the possibility of being weak, stupid, frail and slow.  It's not fair to start some people off with that kind of inherent disadvantage.  And it's a LARGE disadvantage, not a tiny one.

:roll: And I love how one player made the comment that if you want to have good stats you are power gaming.  Hrm, well I'll make sure to kill the next character that has kick ass.  Just because you want to have a successful, heroic character, doesn't mean you're power gaming.  It means that's the kind of escape you enjoy finding in the game.  It's a story, create who you want to, in the world there are so many people with so many ideals and I think that people need to be open minded in this game a little more just because the majority of people in Zalanthas societies appear to act and believe a certain way doesn't mean they actually do and it doesn't mean all people do.  

Once again, I would like to reiterate, this isn't about kick ass stats.  It's about AVERAGE stats and an even playing field.  Zalanthas isn't real life it's a game, and many of us play to make our mark, pursue stories and goals.  Even if you wish to play someone who is not successful you have that option whether your stats are good or bad to ignore good stats.  People that get nerfed randomly with bad stats while their skills are already hindered do to guild, do not have the option to ignore their bad stats if they wish to be mighty and successful, they only have the option to struggle harder then other players and their PCs based on blind luck.  Stats do not deviate the characters coded background and it shouldn't because then we would be losing the creation of our characters.  The people that do yearn to be successful and enjoy an adventerous life in Zalanthas should at least be able to start evenly at an average stat at the very least, and not two steps back, just to the roll of a dice.  It's a game it's about enjoyment not some fundamental zealous ideal that you're going to have to suck, tough luck.  At least that's my take on it.

You do know that if they take out the descriptors called 'below average' and 'poor' that the numeric ranges and the effects of those numerics will remain the same, right?

If you're arguing that minimum stats for all races to be raised so that you can't get a below average, what fun is that?  Seriously, we're not all playing supermen/women.  We're playing realistic chracters that sometimes have things about them that truly suck.

Deal with it.

Some people want to play weak characters, some want to play heroic. I don't really care sometimes, but if you want those specific stats, special app. I'm sure the imms would help you out.

I don't know if I'd like that too much.

Granted, I'm on my first character with the game, so my knowledge of how much stats affect one might be off. But I got a few stats that seemed really off for what I had in mind. Luckily, I didn't write anything in my background to describe my character as good with a stat, and now I'm playing the character off of them without any hurt going into the story I wrote up and having a blast!

As an example... So maybe a warrior with dreams of heroism gets a below average str, and a high wisdom... Instead of making him this huge field warrior, perhaps seek a position in military intelligence in which his heroics may be carved through his mind?

Maybe your acrobat comes with below average agility and a decent strength?  Getting off the ground to do those tumbles and twirls is a cinch, but now, because of that agility, she can never land right, tends to let go of that baton and kill Lord Richguy at just the wrong moment.

So many opportunities, and when it's all over... "That was fun, and those stats opened the way!"

:)

I agree with Jherlen.  Below Average stats only suck compared to somebody with really good stats.  If Good was the highest stat in the game then Below Average wouldn't seem so bad anymore.  Making Average the worst stat won't really change anything because it will still suck compared to somebody with really good stats.  You (Bebop) might be happy with the change, but somebody else will come along one day and say that the Average stat is too low because they suck compared to their friend who has killer stats.  It's sooooo unfair!  :lol:

I know it's crappy to be put at a disadvantage because your stats are lower than the people you play with, but the diversity is a good thing I think.  Making Average the new bottom won't really solve anything because the range will still be great and some other player somewhere will complain about it one day, and making everybody start on an even playing field stat wise won't really make things fair either, because some people have more time to play than others, or are better "power gamers" than others.  Heros in real life arn't usually the strongest, fastest, or smartest people (except maybe in sports), it's usually something else.  I don't think good stats will help anybody become a hero, it just might help you spar better for the first little bit.

I personally wouldn't mind an option that lets you pick a focus stat and have your highest roll go there, and then the rest get placed randomly like before.  Or make stats invisible so everybody can stop worrying about them  8)  One thing i've kinda noticed about this game is it's not a game of heros.  Heros and villains are few and far between, it takes the right player playing the right role at the right time, and when that happens the stats really don't matter!  Sure, 90% of the players try to become heros, but a very small % actually do.  This is a good thing too I think, because some of the other games i've tried my friends bring me around and get me up to level 30 in 2 days and all my gear is glowing by the end.  I'll usually stop playing after day 5 because it gets boring.  This game is fun because I keep trying to do things and while I usually fail at it, I at least learn something in the process.  Hope that made sense     :shock:

While I'm all for random stats to a degree, the problem to me is that poor stats vs. great stats will cause the poor PC to, unless they wanted to play like that, have less fun. Well, in some/most cases, that is. There's people who like to play flaws, but if you take two people with identical goals (let's say they want to become arena champions) and one has poor endurance while the other has absolutely incredible, that's like a 40-50 health difference, which will have a huge impact. When you come out with crappy stats on a character that needs stats a lot (mainly rangers and warriors, really) you will almost certainly have a shorter life than someone with decent or good stats, and that'll take away some enjoyment of playing that character. It's a tough problem, because letting characters completely control their stats will lead to a lot of perfectly tailored PCs and very few "flawed" PCs, but I think that there are ways to get around this, some of which have already been mentioned and some are on the way into the game.

*sigh* This thread has made me feel terrible about my fresh chars stats. I have never actually rolled 'good' stats :/

As ThirdEye said... I am in a long long string of poor and below average stats too. I don't really mind that. But I can imagine how happy I will be to see something better than above average in my stat. If we don't have poor or below average, my happiness would not be that great. :)

Quote from: "Hymwen"While I'm all for random stats to a degree, the problem to me is that poor stats vs. great stats will cause the poor PC to, unless they wanted to play like that, have less fun. Well, in some/most cases, that is. There's people who like to play flaws, but if you take two people with identical goals (let's say they want to become arena champions) and one has poor endurance while the other has absolutely incredible, that's like a 40-50 health difference, which will have a huge impact. When you come out with crappy stats on a character that needs stats a lot (mainly rangers and warriors, really) you will almost certainly have a shorter life than someone with decent or good stats, and that'll take away some enjoyment of playing that character. It's a tough problem, because letting characters completely control their stats will lead to a lot of perfectly tailored PCs and very few "flawed" PCs, but I think that there are ways to get around this, some of which have already been mentioned and some are on the way into the game.

Why does everyone keep saying they're gonna be less fun?
Even with a combat char with bad stats, you're gonna beat the newbies of the same class within a  few days of play time. Also, thre seems to be a strong inverse correlation between good stats and character life span - the better the stats, the shorter you tend to live... ;)

Really though, even poor stats don't make you get insta-killed, with a few days more play time you'll get to the same point as everbody else.

The only type of character that would really achive their goals slower are purely unclanned otuside-characters, because from my experience, people in clans rarely  look at battle strength when it comes to advancng within the clan, but at the way your character does otherwise, it depends more on the part of the game that is roleplayed out than on code (not on how they like the way you play oocly, but do you play a buff guy, a troublemaker, the born leader or..?). So this isn't really about chievement either.

Your agi is low but you want to play an acrobat? Suck it up, just roleplay it out, as long as you can't prioritize stats you shouldn't need to overthrow your whole concept just because one of the random stats didn't fit that well.
Low wisdom? I see wisdom as tha ability to learn, which is just muscle memory in a lot of cases, so maybe your character is a sow learner but not an idiot, so no need to play out a moron just because you got below average wisdom, either.

The stat priorization at character creation is coming in, so that should solve some of these issues - also, if you absolutely NEED one stat higher than another, you can always roleplay out some training and send in the logs.

I have to say that I would be disappointed to see the current numbers-behind-the-screen change. I like the current range. Stat ordering will help many situations where stats don't fit with the character.

When using the new system, be certian to include the concept of a flaw in your character. We all have flaws. For instance, in real life, I have absolutely incredible agility, average strength, below average endurance, and extremely good wisdom. If you think seriously about where your character's flaws are going to be, rather than what will be best for your powergaming, and then place those flaws in order with the stat ordering system, you'll be a-ok with your rolls.

Never create a character without a potential flaw, and you'll never have to deal with the problem you have brought up, not with the stat ordering system.

The only possible change that makes sense is for the stats themselves to be completely hidden from us.

The disad is now I woul not know if I was faster/slower than the average joe of my race.

I currently play a char with a "poor" and "very poor" and one "exceptional" and I'm doing well.

Let go of the fear.  :-D

Quote from: "grog"

Quote from: "Halaster"

Quote from: "grog"You know they used to have a very poor, but they took it out because too many people complained when they got a very poor stat.    I'm sure the level of strength still exists, they just made it say poor instead.

No we didn't.

You mean you actually took it entirely?  I loved very poor!

No, I mean we never took it away.  You can get a very poor stat in certain situations.  Not sure why you think we took it away.  And I don't think we're going to take it away, either.

I actually wish bad stats were more common.  My arm friends are always telling me, oh, dude, I roled an AI.  Man, AI should be Absolutely Incredibly rare and average should be average.

My current character has two poor stats, and one below average.  Also, my character's fast becoming my favourite character of all time.

i don't care about poor stats because they don't matter.

if I'm a ranger/archer and I can't pull a bow, well, I'll talk to the immortals and maybe get some stats swapped.

Otherwise, if it isn't -central- to your character concept (and you shouldn't be building concepts around stats anyway, since you know it's random!!!), then what's it matter? As Delirium said, "it gives you an immediate hook/weakness to RP off of."

plus, they're working on giving us stat ordering, anyway. That will suit all your min/maxing needs.

Quote from: "Agent_137"plus, they're working on giving us stat ordering, anyway. That will suit all your min/maxing needs.

Wow, trolling much, Agent?  Seriously, some people want a ranger that can pull a bow...a warrior that can wear armor without having to crawl or pause for a breather every 50 cords.

This is not a discussion about your opposition to stat ordering.  Go find or make the right thread for that.

As far as playing with the ranges of stats goes (something that's on topic), things seem fine to me.  Three of my five longest lived characters have all had a poor stat.  My longest lived of all time was one of those, and was tremendous fun.

Sure, those characters have certain things they're not so good at.  Whatever.  That's realistic.  This is no epic fantasy game we play, but even in those epic fantasy stories, was any ever perfect in every way?  Didn't they all have a flaw or so?  Something they couldn't do well, so found someone else to help them do it or just do it for them?

I still say deal with it.

You know, another solution to this problem is to make the stats hidden. Stats are pretty much the only thing that is visible as relation to our skills and such. I'm not necessarily saying that I want them hidden, but it would be another solution to this issue. People seem to focus so much on stats, that sometimes they miss the whole picture of the character. If you didn't know that your character had below average wisdom because it wasn't in 'score' would you ever really know the difference? I like knowing what my stats are as much as the next guy, but I don't think it would change anything about the character that I was about to play if I didn't know, because I don't base my characters on what their stats could potentially be. Hummm, just a thought.

-Irulan

I would agree to making stats hidden, except that seeing them does help one rp the statistical strengths and weaknesses of their pc.
I've had pcs with low endurance and rp'ed them getting tired much faster doing things that would be strenuous that don't codedly take away stamina. I've rp'ed having trouble with things that take strength realistically, even though there was nothing coded to back it up. Same with agi...and especially with the wisdom score..

Knowing that my pc learns codedly slower or faster helps my rp of the pc immensely. If my pc has a low wisdom score I'll sometimes have them mess things up that I OOCly know the correct/best way to do it. I'll sometimes have them do foolish things because codedly they "aren't the coldest beer in the fridge".

Hiding your stats is a great idea.  Way too much grief goes on because of stats.  Stats don't matter.  Except in a few cases (mages who don't have 50 mana points, rangers who can't use bows) stats are a very minor point.

Stats don't matter.  Skills dominate stats.  Your character is badass or not based on your roleplay and/or your skills.

Quote from: "Agent_137"You shouldn't be building concepts around stats anyway, since you know it's random!

Quoted for truth.

Quote from: "spawnloser"Sure, those characters have certain things they're not so good at.  Whatever.  That's realistic.  This is no epic fantasy game we play, but even in those epic fantasy stories, was any ever perfect in every way?  Didn't they all have a flaw or so?  Something they couldn't do well, so found someone else to help them do it or just do it for them?

I still say deal with it.

It's not an epic fantasy game?  Damn!  And I thought this was about fun.  Why don't we just implement high fees for gas for our kanks, a starbucks on every corner and cubicles for House jobs, like in Borsail or Winrothol all the employees will sit in the cubicles until a slaving job is assigned and the Serjeants can where corn flower blue.

It -is- a freaking fantasy game.  Jesus Christ.  It's not about having a shitty character, it's about drama and fun, like reading a good book.  And if some of us didn't have aspirations to be great then where would the game be?  Without a plot that's where.  What about Sujaal A'jinn Academy, what about streets named after PCs and the Byn things like that, that were done IG.  The game is about fun, it's not some suck it up for realism thing.  You should be able to enjoy yourself without getting sent a gizzillion steps back because a random roll decides that you are going to suck in one or more areas.  I don't think you all realize just how huge a gap there is.  

But that's fine really, since all of the sudden, everyone lurves their shitty stats, and this is not a fantasy game, and it's fun to play shitty characters with no goals.  This is such BS and I think most of you are missing the entire point of this post, seeing it as a way to up into great stats.  Do you all realize that even average is not that great?  I have played characters with average wisdom and other average stats and sometimes it is very close to below average, but at least it is decent, and below average sometimes you only take off one HP per hit and you will always be that weak and of course not be able to carry much and if you're a ranger good luck with a bow!  That combined with this idea of stamina reduction good luck killing anything for awhile, especially if you're indy (before you get exhausted).  Oh but that's right, if you want to be indy to bad just suck it up and join a clan!    This game isn't about sucking it up and doing one thing or the other at the sacrifice of your enjoyment, it's about creating a character that you will enjoy and a story to go along with that.  

Some of you guys aren't looking at the idea in a realistic way.  An IMM immediately cuts the line on my idea without reason and all of the sudden everyone enjoys having crappy stats.  Cheers.

Bebop,

I say that almost every character who has a street named after them had poor stats.  And did almost everything that made them famous -without- a coded benefit.

Quote from: "da mitey warrior"Hiding your stats is a great idea.  Way too much grief goes on because of stats.  Stats don't matter.  Except in a few cases (mages who don't have 50 mana points, rangers who can't use bows) stats are a very minor point.

I don't know.  Seeing stats helps give a feel for the character, I find.  It contributes to roleplay.  I'd be disappointed if they were hidden.

Perhaps the players who played Sujaal, and ones who had streets named after them should post their character's stats.  Was it their stats which made them famous?  I think we should test this.

I really don't see how one oor stat makes a character crappy or completely ruins all the fun when it doesn't have much of an influence 90% of the time.

And I'm pretty sure that there are more bows currently in game for average strength and below than for high strength - that ranger with str along the lines of average or above average had trouble finding a bow that wasn't too weak for her.

Quote from: "mansa"Bebop,

I say that almost every character who has a street named after them had poor stats.  And did almost everything that made them famous -without- a coded benefit.

Mansa, I'm guessing that you're just guessing but something tells me that people like Sujaal that were so badass, did not having crappy stats.  And most people that I have seen that are in leadership roles that do well don't have crappy stats because I have seen them with there bows and what strengths there bows are or the gear they wear.

Eldor had exceptional strength.

Quote from: "da mitey warrior"Perhaps the players who played Sujaal, and ones who had streets named after them should post their character's stats.  Was it their stats which made them famous?  I think we should test this.

You know what... I agree.  That character was around a long long time ago. It wouldn't matter now.  I'm curious.  If Sujaal had shitty stats, then I will shut right up.  But I think I'm right.

QuoteEldor had exceptional strength.

Who?

Shitty stat'd characters rule because it forces the player to think... something it seems the playerbase is trying to get away from.

Just my 2 silt pearls.

My favorite character of all time had exceptional agility. If he didn't have exceptional agility, I probably wouldn't have been able to do most of the things I was able to, thanks to the stat.

Bebop, you are fighting a losing battle.. Too many people here (mostly always the same ones, tho) will gladly shout that their favorite characters all had shitty stats, for some reasons.. The thing is, tho, that most of these people probably prefers to play a social role more than a role that are connected to stats.

It doesn't matter if you have poor stats, if you mostly enjoy playing nobles.

Another thing, of why you can't win the debate of why good stats are important to your 'fun' factor, is that you'll probably always look better if you proclaim that you prefer social roles rather than ones that requires a lot of coded actions.

Especially when they know that an IMM is reading the thread.

MY favorite Pc had awesome Stats. So awesome, I could swing a life-zied halfling club around.

In Bebop's defense, I think that many of you folks who like the idea of random and hidden because we're 'focused too much on our stats' are really judging when you shouldn't be.

I am not conceited, but I know that I am a decent roleplayer, even excellent to some folks, by their own words, not my perceptions. I immerse myself in my character to the utmost extent that any sane person would. I play with the world around me, with the PCs around me when I should, and bring the world to life as I think it should be done. I think often, contribute to the coded world on occassion, and so forth and so on.

But I am extremely interested in my stats. Does it mean that I would suicide a character without the stats that I need? No. But it does mean that when I create a hulking PC (and don't tell me that it's bad form to do so ... I don't care what you think about it, some people just look tough or strong, and believe it or not, they often are tough or strong) and I get below strength, that I am disappointed.  Sure, I'll play him with a 'back problem' or a 'hernia' or 'bad legs' or whatever. But I'm not happy about it.

So, I consider myself a good roleplayer with a talent for bringing the world to life, and yet at the same time, I care deeply about stats. I would pitch a flaming fit if they were hidden. I mean, I would really pitch a fucking fit. So, are you then telling me that, because I care about my stats, I am possibly missing the big picture of my character?

Seriously, getting upset because someone wants their stats to match their character concept and then accusing them of potentially being unable to grasp their character seems judgemental at best to me.

On the other side of the coin, Bebop, there has to be a below average and a poor. Without these, there is no average, and without average, there is no higher stat. For the now, until stat ordering comes along, I say just deal with it as a fluke of bad luck for the character, or, if it seriously clashs with your character, petition the Staff to help you in regards to this problem. They are not as hateful about stat changes and adjustments as many make them out to be.

I know that's not really what you want to hear, but your proposition isn't what I want to hear either. :)

Venoms, I agree with you.   Well stated.

Let me also add that I've had some pretty incredible characters with some below average stats.  And some of them have had below average wisdom.

Edit: My favorite, most badass character had below average wisdom.

QuoteAnother thing, of why you can't win the debate of why good stats are important to your 'fun' factor, is that you'll probably always look better if you proclaim that you prefer social roles rather than ones that requires a lot of coded actions.

I think you're missing the point.  It's not that you don't need to do coded things, it's that skills matter for coded things more than stats do.

All evidence is that for most non-karma races stats fall in the traditional DnD range (8-18 +/- racial bonuses).

While skills range from 1-100, depending on your guild's skill cap. (people who were around when skill %s were visable might want to verify this)

And it seems pretty clear (especially from some of the helpfiles) that the chance to succeed in most coded actions is stat + skill.  

Like in combat your ToHit chance is agi + offense + weapon skill + other factors and random numbers.  

The 10 point variation in stats pales in comparison to the 200 point variation in skills.  

So if you have blah stats it does not really matter, with a few exceptions (like strength checks on weapons/bows and magicker mana points).   Skills matter, stats don't.

> get body
You strain as you lift Halaster's body.

> You deftly avoid Xygax's slash.
You deftly avoid Xygax's slash.

>w
 You are too tired.



>inv
You are carrying:
   Nothing.

> get twig all
You get a broken twig.
You cannot carry a broken twig.
You cannot carry a broken twig.
You cannot carry a broken twig.
You cannot carry a broken twig.
You cannot carry a broken twig.
You cannot carry a broken twig.
You cannot carry a broken twig.
You cannot carry a broken twig.

>cast 'mcdonald sweet sweet ice tea' me
You do not have enough mana.

The point?

Stats do matter. Saying that they don't is incorrect. It seems close-minded to disqualify somebody's argument that stats are important to them and their character.

Skills do matter more in the long run of the game when it comes to coded actions like crafting and blah blah blah. But stats do and always will matter. They are as integeral a part of the game as skills are. They are called upon when a skill doesn't matter.

Skills and stats do matter.

Just as an obfuscating side note:

What I think Bebop is suggesting is the following: roll each stat on its current range, with whatever probability distribution is coded.  If the result is less than "average," clamp it up to average anyway.  The result is not a shift of the whole stat distribution; it's a spike in the number of average stats.  This is different from what some people seem to be implying; namely, make the minimum stat "average" and shift the whole probability distribution, making, like, "really good" the new real average.

For whatever this newbie's opinion is worth, I think the former approach would be beneficial...leaving the high stats as rare as presently, but fudging up the poor ones.  Yes, this increases the real average, but not by near as much as some folks seem to be implying, and it leaves the median unchanged.

Staff People, I don't need to know the answer to this-- but is the stat distribution uniform or, like, Gaussian?  In real life, I'd expect the latter, but I'm kind of suspecting that the former is the case on Arm: it's the easiest to code and understand, and it results in a much bigger likelihood of getting multiple Really Bad (or good) stats.

Quote from: "Ava"Staff People, I don't need to know the answer to this-- but is the stat distribution uniform or, like, Gaussian?  In real life, I'd expect the latter, but I'm kind of suspecting that the former is the case on Arm: it's the easiest to code and understand, and it results in a much bigger likelihood of getting multiple Really Bad (or good) stats.

Gaussian, as much as a random number generator can provide.

Quote from: "Bebop"
It -is- a freaking fantasy game.  Jesus Christ.  It's not about having a shitty character, it's about drama and fun, like reading a good book.  And if some of us didn't have aspirations to be great then where would the game be?  Without a plot that's where.  What about Sujaal A'jinn Academy, what about streets named after PCs and the Byn things like that, that were done IG.  The game is about fun, it's not some suck it up for realism thing.  You should be able to enjoy yourself without getting sent a gizzillion steps back because a random roll decides that you are going to suck in one or more areas.  I don't think you all realize just how huge a gap there is.  

But that's fine really, since all of the sudden, everyone lurves their shitty stats, and this is not a fantasy game, and it's fun to play shitty characters with no goals.  This is such BS and I think most of you are missing the entire point of this post, seeing it as a way to up into great stats.  Do you all realize that even average is not that great?  I have played characters with average wisdom and other average stats and sometimes it is very close to below average, but at least it is decent, and below average sometimes you only take off one HP per hit and you will always be that weak and of course not be able to carry much and if you're a ranger good luck with a bow!  That combined with this idea of stamina reduction good luck killing anything for awhile, especially if you're indy (before you get exhausted).  Oh but that's right, if you want to be indy to bad just suck it up and join a clan!    This game isn't about sucking it up and doing one thing or the other at the sacrifice of your enjoyment, it's about creating a character that you will enjoy and a story to go along with that.  

Some of you guys aren't looking at the idea in a realistic way.  An IMM immediately cuts the line on my idea without reason and all of the sudden everyone enjoys having crappy stats.  Cheers.

Hey Bebop, I can tell you're getting upset because people are trashing your ideas which have a very valid point.  I still think you're placing too much importance on stats when it comes to the enjoyment of your character.  Yes stats do matter to some degree, and it will make it harder to do the things you want to do if you have crappy stats, but it doesn't make it impossible.  I agree 100% that this is a game first and foremost and we're all here for our own enjoyment, and most of us despite some of the responses in this thread aspire towards some degree of greatness in whataver it is our characters do, whether it be becoming the greatest warrior in the lands, or being the best dressed commoner in the tavern.  Stats can help or hinder your path to obtaining your character's goals. but I still don't think it makes it impossible.  Heros of the game like this Sujal may or may not have had good stats, but their greatness was not dependant on them.

You're right, it's a "freaking fantasy game", and not about having a shitty character, but is a character with not so great stats automatically a shitty character?  It might be harder to do what you want to do, but it's still possible.  Yes there are street names named after PCs who have achieved greatness, but it is not very common because getting there is hard to do.  I think making it so tough is a good thing too, because if it was relatively easy thing to do becoming the next great warrior and having an academy named after you, then there would be academies popping up all over and suddenly it won't be so special anymore.  Making it tough doesn't make it impossible, just keep trying and one day you might get there and it'll be awesome.  If it wasn't such a challenge, and 2 out of 3 of your characters could get there, then you'll probably get bored of the game pretty quick because you would have done all there is to do with only a few characters.

I guess all i'm trying to say is to not let your character's stats dictate the enjoyment you feel you can have with a character.  If you create a concept that you're proud of, and it ends up having crappy stats, don't automatically think "Oh, this guy will never amount to anything anymore".  Go and try to become the next Sujal and use your limitations to help develop that character.  They are what will make this character different from the next one you play.  

Anyways, i'm not saying your ideas are good ideas or bad ideas.  Your ideas have a lot of good points, but there are also a lot of good points as to why there should be a wide gap between stats.  Changing it one way or another will make some happy and other upset.  I just hope you can see that you can still do all the things your want to do whether you have good stats or not.

It's not so widely known that we use a slightly more convuluted form of the nethack character generation engine. This means that things like the current RL day when you generate your character, the name of your character (converted to a number and the check digit derived), and what you ate for lunch are taken into account, and help decide the end result.

QuoteThis means that things like the current RL day when you generate your character, the name of your character (converted to a number and the check digit derived), and what you ate for lunch are taken into account, and help decide the end result.

I must have eaten the right thing for lunch when I made my current character... g/eg/g/ex :D

Quote from: "Dakurus"It's not so widely known that we use a slightly more convuluted form of the nethack character generation engine. This means that things like the current RL day when you generate your character, the name of your character (converted to a number and the check digit derived), and what you ate for lunch are taken into account, and help decide the end result.

Are you being serious? If you are, that is ... like ... really cool.

The Gaussian distribution is just another name for the normal distribution.

I think what you meant was normal or exponential, since exponential distributions have a high frequency of low values and low frequency of very high values.  With an exponential distribution, the median score is significantly lower than the mean score, due to the presence of a relatively high number of very extreme high scores.

However, the Largest Extreme Value distribution follows a similar pattern, except for the presence of a "stubby" tail on the low-value side and somewhat more subdued high-value extremes.

Immediately after getting two below averages in agility and strength for a character, even after a reroll, I suicided him. It pretty much killed any desire I had to play that character, especially knowing that he would never amount to shit as a warrior.

Quite frankly, the stat system is asinine and should be changed drastically to fit a more logical system that doesn't rely on a pure gamble. It pisses me off to know that someone can get a couple AIs while I get stuck with BAs.

QuoteImmediately after getting two below averages in agility and strength for a character, even after a reroll, I suicided him. It pretty much killed any desire I had to play that character, especially knowing that he would never amount to shit as a warrior.

While I understand your frustration, I'm pretty sure suiciding a character because of stats is very frowned-upon by the powers that be.

Quote from: "Bebop"

Quote from: "spawnloser"Sure, those characters have certain things they're not so good at.  Whatever.  That's realistic.  This is no epic fantasy game we play, but even in those epic fantasy stories, was any ever perfect in every way?

It's not an epic fantasy game?  Damn!  And I thought this was about fun.  Why don't we just implement high fees for gas for our kanks, a starbucks on every corner and cubicles for House jobs, like in Borsail or Winrothol all the employees will sit in the cubicles until a slaving job is assigned and the Serjeants can where corn flower blue.

It -is- a freaking fantasy game.  Jesus Christ.  It's not about having a shitty character, it's about drama and fun, like reading a good book.

Far be it from me to speak for spawnloser, but what I interpreted from his point was more emphasis on the "epic" part rather than on the "fantasy" part to which you reacted so vigorously.  I don't think anyone would deny that Arm is a fantasy game. But epic -- as in dealing with heroes possessed of incredible prowess who accomplish super-human feats against evil foes?  Probably not.

If your stats are too low, you can handle it ICly if it's really that important for your character.  This means you should only do that for a maximum of once every four major long-lived characters.

How do you handle it IC?  Work out!
If your endurance is too low, start jogging and carrying around rocks.
If your strength is too low, start doing push-ups or weight lifting.
If your agility is too low, start taking acrobatics/dancing lessons or just do dexterity training like working on rolls and jumping.
If your wisdom is too low, start doing memory or mathematical work.  Take Kruth cards and teach yourself how to count them, get someone to teach you whatever.

Do one of the four above things three or four times, with good realistic roleplaying, make a nice clean log and email the MUD (and your clan imms if any) and politely ask to have the stat boosted.  Include the logs, and the IC and OOC reasons for why you want the stat raised.  If you want to get more intensive boosting for your character's stats, again, just email the MUD and ask politely.
I've had a character get his Strength boosted from Below Average to Average, once.  It wasn't such a big deal.

With all this said, it's silly to place such high importance on stats.  It's true that if your stats are below a minimum, such as having a crafter that can't keep 5 objects in his inventory or a magicker without enough mana to cast any spells, that something is wrong.  But these things are rare and probably much easier to get fixed by the staff.  Once your skill start getting truly good, though, all that strength and agility stop meaning quite as much - a warrior with 100 days playtime and Poor strength will still beat the crap out of a warrior with 30 days playtime and AI strength.

But anyway, if your stats make your desired role utterly impossible to play, email the MUD and work out a solution.  But stats are only ever such a problem with, like, one out of fifty characters if even that.

This thread is littered with so many stereotypes and misconceptions, it's pretty sad.

Bad stats do not mean your character is doomed to the suck and you should immediately suicide. Not everybody who plays a PC with bad stats is a social roleplayer who only cares about tavern sitting. Not everybody who disagrees with Bebop is doing so because we're playing "follow the leader" with an imm. The RPT didn't start two hours late because people wanted to annoy you..... oops, wrong thread.

When I create a concept, I don't think about skills beyond what guild best fits the PC. I don't get myself set on being really fantastic with anything. I'd rather just play my character and let her advance naturally. Maybe that's why I don't get disappointed when I roll bad stats. I had a warrior with below average wisdom once and I thought it was hilarious. I knew she was going to be slow as molasses getting good with her skills, but I didn't care. If she'd survived in her clan, she still would have made it up the ladder either way.

I'll try and phrase things differently. When you create a concept, it's because you want to play a -character-, right? If we were playing guilds and not characters, the game would have a whole lot less options. So what about the concept that you created, before knowing anything about your stats, becomes less attractive if you don't get a good stat roll?

You can suicide PC after PC until you get somebody with super powerful stats (or until the staff catches you), but in the end, that super stat PC is just as mortal as one who isn't. Further, making a memorable character is decided by you the player much MUCH more than by your character's stat sheet. I am sure there have been multitudes of 1337-statted warriors and rangers. I imagine lots of them could have gone out and solo'd three braxat by themselves, or whatever. So why don't more of these awesome-statted PCs get talked about? Probably because your PC needs to be memorable, long lived, and interesting for people to remember you and make you famous. Having good stats isn't enough to get you there.

Quote from: "Morgenes"Gaussian, as much as a random number generator can provide.

Dude, forgive me for doubting.  :lol:

I don't care if my warrior has below average wisdom, it doesn't affect him much when it comes down to him being a warrior.

I care if I end up with a warrior with below average strength, tho.

When I create a concept, I want to play the character that I've created, not a modified version of it due to unexpected stats.

Anyway, this conversation is going in circle..

There's just as many awesome-statted PCs talked about in game as there is poor-statted ones, I'm sure.

The difference is that I, and some others, enjoy playing characters with decent stats in which we are supposed to excel.

Heh, perhaps we should be able to re-pick our guild as well, once we see our stats.. That's not a bad idea.

ONCE again.

I will reiterate.

Having crappy stats, does not mean your character can not be enjoyed.

Your character with some random disadvantage can be enjoyed.

This is my point put simply:  Though you can enjoy a character, stats do matter.  And it is inherently unfair to players in the aspect of Armageddon being a game, that they would have to start out with a below average disadvantage to their skills based on nothing more then randomness.

My idea is to keep the learning and ability rates of stats the same.  But to eliminate the learning and ability rates of poor and below average stats, so that the lowest someone can learn and fight will be at an average rate.  Everyone may not be able to be absolutely incredible, but it is not fair that some people are forced randomly to start out sucking inherently due to their coded abilites effected by stats.

The idea is simply this:  since everyone wants to enjoy and pursue their goals, seeing this as a game produced for the sake of enjoyment that should not be thrown out the window for the sake of realism:  the lowest starting point a character should be forced randomly to work with is average abilities.

It is not fair and it is a pain in the ass that some people should have randomly selected nerfed/poor cabablities that they struggle with.  All I'm talking about is an even playing field.  So that people at least have an opportunity to be average.  RP aside, if you are embarking to be successful with your skills stats DO effect this, like it or not.

While I'm not going to lock this thread, it's usually a good sign that you're going in circles when you're using words like, "reiterate".  If you've said all that needs to be said on the subject, please let your words speak for themselves and don't re-post them over and over.

-- X

Hopefully I'm bringing something new to the threat without derailing it.

Personally, I'd love it if you didn't know your character's score. Or if we had the option of not being able to. To me, it would make my characters seem more real. You might say that one should know their character's strengths and weaknesses but it's not like I, myself know if my strength is good, poor, etc. I don't know if my wisdom is average. I know that I'm pretty smart and I know that because of comparisons and results of my experiences. I'd like it if this was the only way you knew your 'score' IC as well. Knowing you're quick cause you can shoot that d-elf in the head. Knowing you're strong cause you're carrying a bag filled of boulders. You get the point. Although, several people probably want to know what their character's score is, so, like I said, making it optional would be good.

-Rhyden

I didn't read all the replies, so if this has been said, let me say it also.

I have heard somewhere on the GDB from an admin, that they are considering adding a system to stats that allows you to pick what order you want your stats rolled. You may not get good stats but you'll get some control over how they are made up.

*shrug*

Quote from: "Medena"

Quote from: "Bebop"

Quote from: "spawnloser"Sure, those characters have certain things they're not so good at.  Whatever.  That's realistic.  This is no epic fantasy game we play, but even in those epic fantasy stories, was any ever perfect in every way?

It's not an epic fantasy game?  Damn!  And I thought this was about fun.  Why don't we just implement high fees for gas for our kanks, a starbucks on every corner and cubicles for House jobs, like in Borsail or Winrothol all the employees will sit in the cubicles until a slaving job is assigned and the Serjeants can where corn flower blue.

It -is- a freaking fantasy game.  Jesus Christ.  It's not about having a shitty character, it's about drama and fun, like reading a good book.

Far be it from me to speak for spawnloser, but what I interpreted from his point was more emphasis on the "epic" part rather than on the "fantasy" part to which you reacted so vigorously.  I don't think anyone would deny that Arm is a fantasy game. But epic -- as in dealing with heroes possessed of incredible prowess who accomplish super-human feats against evil foes?  Probably not.

That was EXACTLY the point I was making...the focus was on EPIC not on FANTASY.  We are playing in a fantasy game, yes, but we are not all playing heroic people that save the world from the great evil.  If we were, Muk and Tek would both be dead and our characters would be conducting a democratic utopia by now.

Stats do and don't matter.

Stat deficiencies are overcome by skill.  In fact, in the long run, skill is far more important than attributes.  But, a lot of people don't manage to have characters that survive that long.

In the short term stats can make a difference.  But that difference isn't as great as some people think.

It depends on the particular stat too. For a non-magicker, wisdom doesn't have much of a direct influence (as far as I know) on most things you do, it just makes you learn faster, so you have to practice more with a low wisdom. Agility doesn't matter much for a non-combat character unless you're a thief, and then you're screwed anyway ;)

But some things like endurance, which determines your health (and the difference between below average and exceptional is big) doesn't have a skill that makes this difference less noticeable. For someone who fights for their life every day, a 30 health difference really is a big deal. For a magicker, the extra mana from wisdom is a big deal. For a warrior, strength is a big deal - it doesn't just mean a damage bonus, it determines which weapons you can use and how much armor you can wear.

Not saying that it shouldn't be that way, or that stats should mean less or be less random, but that's why some people really loathe when they plan to play a Bynner or arena gladiator or whatever, and end up with below average strength, poor agility and average endurance.

Also, for people who say "but skills will make up for it" - yeah, but a characater with poor stats will learn their skills more slowly on top of the direct disadvantages of crappy stats. Low wisdom, slow learner. Low endurance, you can't spar as much. Low strength, you can't carry as many hides back to town (or whatever). It's not like a character with poor stats get better skills to make up for it, so I think it's a flimsy argument.

As many have mentioned, statistics play a role in how our characters are able to perform with relation to the code.  To what degree depends on the guild's reliance on coded skills to survive the game world.

:arrow: Stats will have an impact on your character's performance.

One of the most exciting features of Armageddon is that you can create a character with a nearly limitless set of personalities, backgrounds, goals and interests.  If you want to play a slaver, you can apply for one.  You want a dwarven miner who's focus is to tunnel from Allanak to Tuluk, go ahead.  Feel the need to play prideful and vain Noble House guard who secretly loves nothing more than the perfectly crafted biscuit, all good.

But if you want to make a strong warrior, a nimble thief, a cunning merchant or a hardy ranger, you're at the mercy of the code.  This is not to say you cannot describe your character as you see them in your mind, or play them a certain way despite a contradiction on their score, but it makes things more difficult.  The game's statistics then play an integral role in the coded success your PC will have in comparison to others in the same profession.

:arrow: Random stats are realistic; not everyone will be talented or powerful.

True, but it's sort of like telling someone who loves to play baseball that they can play with the others, but they'll be playing one-handed.  Not a fair comparison?  The game sets people up for disappointment by allowing any reasonable character concept to be created before[/i] they ever see the statistics that will go along with that character.  It isn't unrealistic for the character to be less able than his/her peers, but it's often discouraging to the player to learn they will be challenged.  Some will welcome the challenge, embrace the flaw, and emerge all the stronger through dedication, patience and understanding.

Many others aren't interested in playing one-handed baseball.

That's usually when they conveniently rationalize a way for their character to meet an untimely end (easy to do in Zalanthas), and start again with a slightly varied description and background.  I am in no way condoning or advocating the suicide of a character, and I would never do such a thing over statistics, but I know that it does happen and I can sympathize with why some people might be frustrated enough to pursue it.

:arrow: I've been over the fence, and I prefer the greener grass.

Anyone who has created a ranger and been unable to pull an ash longbow has cursed and muttered to themselves.  Warriors who login to find themselves with 82 health sigh in frustration when they previously had a character with 115.  Half-giants that appreciated an agility score that allowed them to pick up more than one item may groan when they move to pickup the second rock and receive, "You cannot carry anymore." messages.

It's hard to play the loser, the challenged, the disadvantaged.  It's difficult to move forward with the full knowledge that others have it better and things will come more easily, and they do.  While statistics won't make someone a smarter player, or a better RPer, it can provide something of a safety net for people that allows them to survive aspects of the gameworld which would kill someone with lesser stats.  The frustration here is generally not that you have 'below average' as a stat, but that it could have been 'absolutely incredible'.

:arrow: Solutions?

The Imms have mentioned that stat ordering is something they are considering.  If you find yourself in a position where a given statistic is really cramping your style, you can always contact the Imm Staff and ask them to review your character and maybe make a few changes.  Many of them understand that we play this game for "fun" and that word means different things for everyone.  While they aren't interested in letting you play out your fantasy of having a warrior with a score of "absolutely incredible" in every stat, they will likely be sympathetic to players who face some legitimite issues, which do exist.

It is true that this game is ultimately about adding a chapter to the greater story and not about the success of your character.  It is true that RP does not need to suffer at the hands of disappointing stats, and that most roles can be portrayed perfectly without any stat fiddling whatsoever.  It is not true that stats are meaningless, nor that a player's concern over them somehow lessens their quality of RP.  

Some days you just want to be a hero.  Who can argue with that?

-LoD

I hate you, LoD.

Why? Because it seems like whenever I have an opinion that I want to express, I do so, and you come along and do something similar, only better than I can with my second-language english and my 3-4 months of playing time on Arm. You always make sense and express yourself with facts, understanding, fancy layouts, and/or in polite and sensitive manners. You've probably (hopefully) noticed by now that I was being sarcastic about the first line. I just wanted to up my post count and say that you're my favorite poster :P

It's more than the skills too. Stats have some major penalties to non-skill things that you use every day.

Elf with poor strength? Good luck using daggers and sandcloth and already being half way to your encumbrance limit.

Dwarf merchant with poor agility? Good luck crafting stuff that require more components than you can carry in your inventory.

H-elf ranger with poor endurance? Good luck surviving with like 70 health and 90 stamina (ok, probably a little more)

Half-giant anything with poor wisdom? You'll never learn what the word 'branching' means.


If you want to play a character with weaknesses that hinder you a lot, good for you. I encourage you but don't expect that others will want to play the same way. I've felt the rush of creating a character and seeing "good-extremely good-good-exceptional") and the feeling of wanting to play him more than any other character I've had. I've also felt the disappointment of planning and describing a rough-looking Bynner, only to see "below avg-poor-avg-below avg" and instantly have a big portion of my motivation go right down the drain. I can't speak for anyone else, but I did not enjoy the game as much with the character who would always be doomed to be the worst in the unit, the one who can't spar worth shit, the one who can't carry his waterskin, the one who never learns new skills and the one who lags behind the other clanmates who have trained just as much.

Quote from: "Coat of Arms"Elf with poor strength? Good luck using daggers and sandcloth and already being half way to your encumbrance limit.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I did not enjoy the game as much with the character who would always be doomed to be the worst in the unit, the one who can't spar worth shit, the one who can't carry his waterskin, the one who never learns new skills and the one who lags behind the other clanmates who have trained just as much.

I've had a delf with poor strength.  Couldn't carry more than one skin of water at a time. Could not use any swords, they all wieghed too much.  But you see the thing is, I never wrote up the character with a stat expectation of any kind.  I like the randomness of the rolls.  I use whatever stat comes up to help develop my character.

That character was a blast, I loved that character, I miss that character.  After 10+ days that character could take on two dujats at once, and did so.

I can understand you wanting to have a character conform to a predefined model based on stats, I have no qualms on that...within reason.  But on the same token, stating that because you have a weak character in some area you -think- is critical, that the character can not be a blast to play is simply wrong.

Just a fyi, the strength limits on bows was extended with the stamina drain code.  You can now shoot some bows you were previously unable to, however doing so will cost more stamina.

Morgenes wrote:

QuoteJust a fyi, the strength limits on bows was extended with the stamina drain code. You can now shoot some bows you were previously unable to, however doing so will cost more stamina.

This is a great change.

Just a note for you half-giants who can't pick up more than one object:  I believe it's Staff policy to give you enough of an agility boost to be able to hold two things in inventory.

All I had to do when I was playing a half-giant was wish up, and I got it fixed within a few minutes.

And the Gaussian distribution is the same thing as the normal distribution! *shakes fist*

In fact, if I recall how it was worded, they don't give you a boost...minimum inventory size is two items, no matter how low the agility.  Just like minimum mana for a PC magicker is enough to cast a spell, no matter how low the wisdom.

No, minimum inventory size isn't 2 items.  I've had lower.

Who not just do away with stats and have everyone get the median stat for their race.

After all, if there is any variation with stats there is going to be someone, somewhere, with better stats than you and that fact is going to ruin your character's life.

Quote from: "da mitey warrior"Who not just do away with stats and have everyone get the median stat for their race.

After all, if there is any variation with stats there is going to be someone, somewhere, with better stats than you and that fact is going to ruin your character's life.

Honestly, I think this is the solution, if people are serious about this argument. If you're going to get rid of all 'bad' stats, and give people at least 'average', then by that logic, you must also get rid of all 'good' stats, and just give everyone 'average'.

The other solution would be to simply remove the ability of players to see their stats. Find out IC if your PC is strong, heh.

Will either of those happen? No. But those are both more logical, and likely (in my opinion) options than just getting rid of the "low" stats.

Personally I think it would be great to be blind to your stat score (not hp or the like obviously).  But only if you could order your stats ahead of time.  This would also remove the usefulness of a reroll since you couldn't see if your stats needed one anyway.  Stat variation, however, is what makes one PC warrior codedly different from another and should stay.

But if I can order my stats so they at least fit my character profile then I wouldn't mind not being able to tell whether I had good strength or very good strength.  I'd have to see ICly and be amazed at how much damage I was doing.  Without stat ordering though it'd obviously just be a pain in the butt.

I stopped reading this thread 5 pages back, this may already have been mentioned several times.

Some folks may not know their own strength, but that's not the rule.

The way stats are, they give you a vauge description that only means anything relative to other folks of your own race.

In real life, I know about how strong I am, about how smart I am, about how quick I am, and about how tough I am. Just like in the game.

I don't see any reason why it would be realistic to completely hide stats.

First, that wasn't a proposal I'm trying to make but a general comment that it wouldn't be such a horrible thing.  The system as is is perfectly fine in my book.  But if we go to a system of stat ordering and no rerolls I say we go all the way and remove stats from the score command.

But I'll defend invisible stats anyways.  Yes, obviously we all know (or think we do) how strong, agile, wise, etc. we all are.  But do you really?  You only know how agile you are in regards to how often and how much you test yourself.  This can be done in game by testing things that deal with the various stats such as lifting heavy loads, watching to see how often you attack in combat, knowing how much damage you can take, etc.

This is the same logic as having hidden skills.  In real life I know I'm not a half bad cook because I made myself dinner tonight and it was good.  In game I know I'm not a half bad cook because my PC is an ace at making travel cakes.  You don't need to be told your ranking in a stat or skill to know your relative ability with it, you just need to test it.  The benefits I see are added mystery about your PC, it being more realistic in how you learn what your stats are, and it may also prevent players from OOCly obsessing over that below average on their score sheet.

*Edit* To Maybe below:  Yeah that's the main objection I can't come up with a strong rebuttal for.  I'd argue that most people IRL really don't know their own strength or agility, at least not in terms that we do in game.  They know what they're more capable at sure, but that's where stat ordering would come in.  So you put strength as your primary stat you know it will be your best stat, though you won't know exactly how good it is.  I'd also add that you don't know what weapons you can use IG anyways until you go to a shop and look them over.  This proposal would just give people a general idea of their stats, much like we already only have general ideas on how skilled we are at dual wielding or how effective that obsidian longsword we own is.

IRL, I've had so many years to effectively gauge how strong/fast/smart I am. Ig, I may only have 3 days. I don't want to spend those three days figuring out if I can lift the weapon I want to or to see if I am a good mover, when I should already know.

In my opinion, not reading the 7 pages of spam, things stay as they are, here's my explanation of what a below average person is.

a school has 20 kids in a class, the average of those 20 kids is a mile in eight minutes.

Bob runs a mile in ten minutes because he's obese and out of shape.  Bob is below average.

Quote from: "Synthesis"And the Gaussian distribution is the same thing as the normal distribution! *shakes fist*

Yeah, dude, but Gaussian sounds so much sexier.  8)

Just remember, the Gaussian function is not minimum-bandwidth if it's got finite support.

Quote from: "Tlaloc"

Honestly, I think this is the solution, if people are serious about this argument. If you're going to get rid of all 'bad' stats, and give people at least 'average', then by that logic, you must also get rid of all 'good' stats, and just give everyone 'average'.

The other solution would be to simply remove the ability of players to see their stats. Find out IC if your PC is strong, heh.

Will either of those happen? No. But those are both more logical, and likely (in my opinion) options than just getting rid of the "low" stats.

My thoughts exactly.