This post is for you guys to give us your thoughts and feedback on the pending changes to how aging affects stats announced here:
http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,31960.0.html
Personally, I'm in total favor for this.
...that is all.
Thank you. This is great.
Looking forward to it.
Woo!
Will the reroll when a character ages be completely random?
What I'm thinking is that the human with Exceptional strength should still be stronger then the human with Good strength once they've both reached an older age. Currently if all that's going to be done is performing another re-roll like what you get at character creation, even with stat ordering, the Exceptional strength guy could still roll an average as his highest or something and end up with stats that don't make sense (Ex: his highest is Average which goes towards Strength - he picked this at character creation- the other guy rolls all Good and ends up being stronger.)
-Elvenchipmunk
I also wish it wasn't random, but I do believe stats SHOULD change more easily.
It feels like this is the easiest fix possible, which is great, but I think a better change would be one outlined here:
http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,30474.msg337929.html#msg337929
So now stats will matter even more than they do already? I'm going to remain apprehensive about this until I'm certain the chances of this change having more adverse than positive effects upon characters proves itself to be otherwise. I'd like to welcome this change, but eh, as much as we're told stats don't matter, it's become quite clear that they do. I just have a bad feeling about this one, but again, I'll save my judgement until I notice any effects this might have on my characters.
Quote from: mansa on August 06, 2008, 12:17:11 PM
I also wish it wasn't random, but I do believe stats SHOULD change more easily.
It feels like this is the easiest fix possible, which is great, but I think a better change would be one outlined here:
http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,30474.msg337929.html#msg337929
OOoh....maybe more wizdomez!
-Lizzie, the wise
So what happens when a character with exceptional strength rerolls and gets a poor? When he's aged a year perhaps in game? Is that going to be possible? How would that be explained?
Quote from: Bogre on August 06, 2008, 12:28:58 PM
So what happens when a character with exceptional strength rerolls and gets a poor? When he's aged a year perhaps in game? Is that going to be possible? How would that be explained?
Let's pray to Tek things like this won't be possible. If they do, characters would become nigh unplayable, and I'd end up storing, or never playing. I just hate to see stats receive more focus than is already due.
Hey, as long as I don't take massive drops in stats on my current PC, I'm game.
Quote from: Tisiphone on August 06, 2008, 12:21:20 PM
Quote from: mansa on August 06, 2008, 12:17:11 PM
I also wish it wasn't random, but I do believe stats SHOULD change more easily.
It feels like this is the easiest fix possible, which is great, but I think a better change would be one outlined here:
http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,30474.msg338173.html#msg338173
Quote from: elvenchipmunk on August 06, 2008, 12:12:02 PM
Will the reroll when a character ages be completely random?
There will be nothing random about the effects of aging upon a character's statistics. It will now be predictable, logical and hopefully well-balanced. It will be automatic. Young characters will mature, peak and decline just as was intended, based upon their age.
It is not a reroll. It is applying modifiers to existing stats at certain time intervals of a PC's life.
This will offset the often-mentioned penalties of starting a very young character over the lifespan of a PC, and simulate the marvelous slide into feeble decrepitude.
Quote from: Tzurahro on August 06, 2008, 12:32:40 PM
This will offset the often-mentioned penalties of starting a very young character over the lifespan of a PC, and simulate the marvelous slide into feeble decrepitude.
Any idea on where said racial thresholds will begin/end?
Quote from: Tzurahro on August 06, 2008, 12:32:40 PM
There will be nothing random about the effects of aging upon a character's statistics. It will now be predictable, logical and hopefully well-balanced. It will be automatic. Young characters will mature, peak and decline just as was intended, based upon their age.
It is not a reroll. It is applying modifiers to existing stats at certain time intervals of a PC's life.
This will offset the often-mentioned penalties of starting a very young character over the lifespan of a PC, and simulate the marvelous slide into feeble decrepitude.
Ah. That's beyond awesome, then.
Just to confirm what Tzu said, this is NOT a reroll, we will be doing computations based on your current attribute and adjusting it for age. The only way you could go from good to poor strength is if you've aged enough that this is now an issue.
What about people who, say, already have poor strength or AI wisdom when an aging mod comes around? Just out of curiosity.
Quote from: manonfire on August 06, 2008, 12:32:02 PM
Hey, as long as I don't take massive drops in stats on my current PC, I'm game.
I like it. Adds some flavor.
Brandon
Quote from: Tisiphone on August 06, 2008, 01:31:26 PM
What about people who, say, already have poor strength or AI wisdom when an aging mod comes around? Just out of curiosity.
I'm sure the AI range for any race is basically defined as >Exceptional Range. So, if you're already somewhere in the AI range, and you go up, it will probably still show as AI.
Same thing for poor, AFAIK. (Has anyone ever had a stat worse than 'poor'? Very poor? Extremely poor? Exceptionally poor? Absolutely atrocious?)
As bad as having poor strength is, I'd hate to see what anything lower would yield..*shudders*
Thank you so much!
This has long been something I griped about, so I'm thrilled. It always seemed to me that starting age modifiers were way out of synch with actual coded aging. Even if your character lasted decades, it seemed like they were always carrying around the modifiers of their starting age.
This makes so much more sense and very much a change for the better, IMHO.
I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that it's random or will make stats matter more at all. It will just mean that age modifiers will match the current age, and not the starting age.
Quote from: Tisiphone on August 06, 2008, 01:31:26 PM
What about people who, say, already have poor strength or AI wisdom when an aging mod comes around? Just out of curiosity.
It depends on what the aging modifier is. Strength starts low then increases to a peak then goes back down. Wisdom starts low and steadily increases. It will follow the curve.
As for the discussion on 'poor' vs. 'very poor', there is no such designation. If your stat was 'poor' before and age made it worse, you won't get another descriptor, but you may notice it in other ways (unable to carry as much, lower endurance, quicker learning).
As the proud owner of a character who's aged about a dozen years in-game, I just hope my stats don't immediately jump in the crapper. The bonus/penalties from age aren't severe unless you're adolescent or getting way old, right? People aren't getting decrepit in their thirties?
Quote from: jstorrie on August 06, 2008, 02:12:43 PM
As the proud owner of a character who's aged about a dozen years in-game, I just hope my stats don't immediately jump in the crapper. The bonus/penalties from age aren't severe unless you're adolescent or getting way old, right? People aren't getting decrepit in their thirties?
Quote from: jstorrie on August 06, 2008, 02:12:43 PM
As the proud owner of a character who's aged about a dozen years in-game, I just hope my stats don't immediately jump in the crapper. The bonus/penalties from age aren't severe unless you're adolescent or getting way old, right? People aren't getting decrepit in their thirties?
No, you aren't decrepit in your thirties.
I can dig it.
I got confused when I read this line:
Quote...Instead of there being a chance of your stats aging, it will work just like character creation/rerolls and ALWAYS apply the affects of aging...
I thought it would be a reroll after a certain time since the character was started. It's not a reroll. It's a definite age modifier as your character progresses through life.
Quote from: Tzurahro on August 06, 2008, 12:32:40 PM
There will be nothing random about the effects of aging upon a character's statistics. It will now be predictable, logical and hopefully well-balanced. It will be automatic. Young characters will mature, peak and decline just as was intended, based upon their age.
It is not a reroll. It is applying modifiers to existing stats at certain time intervals of a PC's life.
This will offset the often-mentioned penalties of starting a very young character over the lifespan of a PC, and simulate the marvelous slide into feeble decrepitude.
Me likey. <3
As someone who's had two characters progress enough that this would have affected them in the past, I wholly approve.
Seems like this has the potential to be very, very cool. ;D
Often times players request a reroll or ask for their stats to be changed because they have gone from a youth>adult. This change would automatically do that to everyone.
I guess my worry is a character that already is younger than the norm for their race and already has extremely poor stats... and then seeing them get worse because they are young. (Pretty much my current PC) I kinda scares me right now. :(
Quote from: JustAnotherGuy on August 06, 2008, 09:57:06 PM
I guess my worry is a character that already is younger than the norm for their race and already has extremely poor stats... and then seeing them get worse because they are young. (Pretty much my current PC) I kinda scares me right now. :(
Most of your stats will you improve as you grow older, up to a point, after which they will decline.
So if you have a young character with crappy stats, when you turn "adult," you should see most of the stats go up. Of course, if your stats -start- crappy, chances are they will still be crappy, relative to the rest of the population.
I think previously, Morgenes or whoever stated that large changes wouldn't be the norm.
Will the "numbered" stats change too, or is this just the stats that have "AI" and "Average" and all that?
Cause, my "worded" stats are perfect. But my numbered stats suck dead tregil pecker. That'd be great if my character grows bigger and stronger, older and wiser (before that point where they go downhill back to decrepitude), the hps would be more robust, the stamina would be spritelier, and the stun would be more stunning.
This sounds awesome to me. ;D
Quote from: Lizzie on August 06, 2008, 10:14:55 PM
Will the "numbered" stats change too, or is this just the stats that have "AI" and "Average" and all that?
Cause, my "worded" stats are perfect. But my numbered stats suck dead tregil pecker. That'd be great if my character grows bigger and stronger, older and wiser (before that point where they go downhill back to decrepitude), the hps would be more robust, the stamina would be spritelier, and the stun would be more stunning.
As I understand it, the hard coded aspect of stats is based on a numerical range. Say, for a human, 4-6 = Good Strength. If your character has a hard coded Strength value of 5, and it improves by 1 on age adjustment, then it's better than what it was, but you'll still see "Good" under strength, when typing score.
Taking in the same argument for Endurance, I would imagine that your Hp, Stun and Stamina would improve by a couple of points, due to the numerical change to your stat..though don't quote me on that.
In fact, don't quote me at all.
Quote from: Pale Horse on August 06, 2008, 10:41:25 PM
Quote from: Lizzie on August 06, 2008, 10:14:55 PM
Will the "numbered" stats change too, or is this just the stats that have "AI" and "Average" and all that?
Cause, my "worded" stats are perfect. But my numbered stats suck dead tregil pecker. That'd be great if my character grows bigger and stronger, older and wiser (before that point where they go downhill back to decrepitude), the hps would be more robust, the stamina would be spritelier, and the stun would be more stunning.
As I understand it, the hard coded aspect of stats is based on a numerical range. Say, for a human, 4-6 = Good Strength. If your character has a hard coded Strength value of 5, and it improves by 1 on age adjustment, then it's better than what it was, but you'll still see "Good" under strength, when typing score.
Taking in the same argument for Endurance, I would imagine that your Hp, Stun and Stamina would improve by a couple of points, due to the numerical change to your stat..though don't quote me on that.
In fact, don't quote me at all.
She meant the numbered stats: i.e. HP, Stun, Stamina, Mana.
Since each of these is presumably dependent upon an appropriate "worded" stat, I'd assume the answer is "yes, they will change also."
Quote from: Synthesis on August 06, 2008, 10:57:29 PM
Quote from: Pale Horse on August 06, 2008, 10:41:25 PM
Quote from: Lizzie on August 06, 2008, 10:14:55 PM
Will the "numbered" stats change too, or is this just the stats that have "AI" and "Average" and all that?
Cause, my "worded" stats are perfect. But my numbered stats suck dead tregil pecker. That'd be great if my character grows bigger and stronger, older and wiser (before that point where they go downhill back to decrepitude), the hps would be more robust, the stamina would be spritelier, and the stun would be more stunning.
As I understand it, the hard coded aspect of stats is based on a numerical range. Say, for a human, 4-6 = Good Strength. If your character has a hard coded Strength value of 5, and it improves by 1 on age adjustment, then it's better than what it was, but you'll still see "Good" under strength, when typing score.
Taking in the same argument for Endurance, I would imagine that your Hp, Stun and Stamina would improve by a couple of points, due to the numerical change to your stat..though don't quote me on that.
In fact, don't quote me at all.
She meant the numbered stats: i.e. HP, Stun, Stamina, Mana.
Since each of these is presumably dependent upon an appropriate "worded" stat, I'd assume the answer is "yes, they will change also."
Did I not just say that?
I feel sorry for anyone who started a character at 45+ and rolled shitty stats.
I feel sorry for anyone with shitty stats.
So what happens if I can't play for a few months because of real life stuff?
Ten game years go by, and I come back and my character is feeble.
Hmmmmm.
You should reread the time documentation because a few months =! ten IC years.
Your character should stop aging just because you stop playing.
Characters don't stop aging when you're not logged in. That wouldn't make any sense at all.
You start a twin brother/sister duo at age 14. Sister's player gets sucked into the military for 3 RL months and the brother manages to keep alive all that time. When the sister shows up, she's still gonna be the brother's twin sister..but 2 years younger? Uh, no, that would make zero sense. Not even in a fantasy world.
Quote from: Morgenes on August 06, 2008, 11:49:03 AM
To some of you with really really old characters or characters who started really really young, you might see both benefits and detriments from this. Note that unless you're in the group that I spoke of in the last paragraph, this is intended. (Old people are weak and frail but very wise).
My character falls under this category, and while I think the change itself is great, I hope you show some leniency for the geriatric set, so we don't have some unique and remarkable characters going from superstar to cripple overnight.
Beyond that initial gut-reaction, I have to wonder if this will be yet another reason not to play a "mundane" PC, since it sounds like physical attributes will decline over time, but wisdom will go up. If I play a mundane PC, I'm going to hope he accomplishes great things in his youth and then goes out in a blaze of glory before his body starts to decline, while magic-based characters seem like they would be a better long-term choice. Will there be any change to the affects of wisdom on combat PCs, to balance this? Will skill-caps be raised or given a combat modifier based on wisdom so the weak and frail, but really wise old warriors still have some viability in dealing with the unruly youth out there? There are too few really old, mundane characters out there as it stands now, so I would hope there's some counter-balance put in place to keep them from becoming useless.
Based on my current understanding of the game, stats matter at two points in a character's life: The beginning, before skills kick in, and the end, after skills have been maxed. Does this mean we're going to start seeing arcs of optimization based on character archetypes? Are all newbie thieves going to be really young, to capitalize on high agility, while all new warriors start out at 35 in hopes of high strength and endurance, and every "tall, muscular old man" is a newbie mage? I would hope not, but I can see it happening if there's some benefit to be gained.
Gawd, managing to have wisdom and skill match and/or trump raw strength and agility would make me very, very happy.
Now that I think about it, having a character master any skill in a matter of a couple IG years seems a little ridiculous to me. It just kinda makes it seem that all the years your character's been alive, he's just been sitting around like a bump on a log up until you started playing him.
Quote from: Old Kank on August 09, 2008, 12:37:52 PM
Based on my current understanding of the game, stats matter at two points in a character's life: The beginning, before skills kick in, and the end, after skills have been maxed. Does this mean we're going to start seeing arcs of optimization based on character archetypes? Are all newbie thieves going to be really young, to capitalize on high agility, while all new warriors start out at 35 in hopes of high strength and endurance, and every "tall, muscular old man" is a newbie mage? I would hope not, but I can see it happening if there's some benefit to be gained.
People who want to manipulate and optimize stats probably already do this since age factors do already apply on starting stats. I think that the upcoming change for PC's who have aged many IG years may actually discourage this rather than promote it as you suggest.
Quote from: Old Kank on August 09, 2008, 12:37:52 PM
There are too few really old, mundane characters out there as it stands now, so I would hope there's some counter-balance put in place to keep them from becoming useless.
I doubt the changes will make them useless. They may not be as spry as a thirty year old (and, really, why would they be?), but it's not like skills are diminishing.
Quote
Based on my current understanding of the game, stats matter at two points in a character's life: The beginning, before skills kick in, and the end, after skills have been maxed. Does this mean we're going to start seeing arcs of optimization based on character archetypes? Are all newbie thieves going to be really young, to capitalize on high agility, while all new warriors start out at 35 in hopes of high strength and endurance, and every "tall, muscular old man" is a newbie mage? I would hope not, but I can see it happening if there's some benefit to be gained.
I hope not, too. I think sometimes people need to take a step back and remember this is a roleplay game.
Quote from: flurry on August 10, 2008, 10:15:54 AM
Quote from: Old Kank on August 09, 2008, 12:37:52 PM
There are too few really old, mundane characters out there as it stands now, so I would hope there's some counter-balance put in place to keep them from becoming useless.
I doubt the changes will make them useless. They may not be as spry as a thirty year old (and, really, why would they be?), but it's not like skills are diminishing.
The 50+ year olds I have played have had absolutely atrocious stats. It was really rather impossible to do much of anything coded with them that didn't involve magick or crafting. Combat and sneakiness are simply based too much on stats for a character with poor/poor/exceptional/below average to be useful.
Quote from: Yam on August 10, 2008, 02:37:42 PM
The 50+ year olds I have played have had absolutely atrocious stats. It was really rather impossible to do much of anything coded with them that didn't involve magick or crafting. Combat and sneakiness are simply based too much on stats for a character with poor/poor/exceptional/below average to be useful.
This is true, and happened to someone I know not so long ago.
And by atrocious stats, they are truly absolutely atrocious stats for the role he/she picked. Both the original and reroll were pretty bad.
I know that Zalanthas does not have the best medical care, but I wouldn't imagine 50 year olds to be quite so feeble.
That is pretty old, comparing to RL.
Average Life Expectancy as seen on
SOURCE: Population Reference Bureau. 2001 World Population Data Sheet. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau, 2001.
Place Total Male Female
World 67 65 69
Developed countries 75 72 79
Less developed countries 64 63 66
Africa 54 52 55
Asia 67 65 68
Asia (excluding China) 64 63 66
Latin America (and Caribbean) 71 68 74
Europe 74 70 78
North America (U.S. and Canada) 77 74 80
Indeed, but most 50 year olds I know can still kick a great deal of ass. Hell, most of the 70 year olds I know still fall down giant trees in their yard if need be.
Quote from: Delstro on August 10, 2008, 02:56:57 PM
That is pretty old, comparing to RL.
Average Life Expectancy as seen on
SOURCE: Population Reference Bureau. 2001 World Population Data Sheet. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau, 2001.
Place Total Male Female
World 67 65 69
Developed countries 75 72 79
Less developed countries 64 63 66
Africa 54 52 55
Asia 67 65 68
Asia (excluding China) 64 63 66
Latin America (and Caribbean) 71 68 74
Europe 74 70 78
North America (U.S. and Canada) 77 74 80
Who really cares about numbers like this in a fantasy world, though? That's like saying that the rate of diseases increase with age and in third-world countries, so Armageddon should reflect that as well.
I'd be for totally removing any age penalties/bonuses. I see too many warriors aged 27 lately and too many young 'sneaky' types, unlike flurry, I actually think that more and more are playing the bonus first
and the role after.
Quote from: Yam on August 10, 2008, 02:58:34 PM
Hell, most of the 70 year olds I know still fall down giant trees in their yard if need be.
Is falling down trees a barometer of good health, then, Yam? The more you know.
I'm just showing the general age. I don't think the median age in Arm should be as high as it says it is.
QuoteLife expectancy at birth by world region, 1950–2000
Area Years
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
World 46 52 58 61 64 66
Developed Countries 67 70 71 73 74 74
Less Developed Countries 41 48 55 59 62 64
Africa 38 42 46 49 53 54
Asia 41 48 56 60 65 66
Latin America (and Caribbean) 51 57 61 65 69 70
Europe 66 70 71 72 73 73
North America (U.S. and Canada) 69 70 72 75 76 77
SOURCE: Yaukey, David, and Douglas L. Anderton. Demography: The Study of Human Population. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, 2001.
Zalanthan humans aren't regular humans. They are super humans.
And Zalanthas does not have the same types of disease that Earth has.
It isn't truly appropriate to use Earth statistics like those, since we aren't dealing with Earth or terrans. These are Zalanthans. Their median age is what is listed in the documentation.
A 57 year old recent had these stats.
'Your strength is poor, your agility is poor,
your wisdom is very good, and your endurance is poor.'
Fifty-seven is not a particularly feeble age. This is about the 4th time this has happened. Middle to late aged character don't seem very viable.
Quote from: Yam on August 11, 2008, 12:30:36 AM
Fifty-seven is not a particularly feeble age.
On Earth, perhaps.
The average lifespan for a human on Zalanthas is 68 years, and take note that this is "lifespan" and not "life expectancy".
This means people are dying of old age at around 68 years old.
Late thirties, earlier forties in age, that would be more around Zalanthan middle-aged.
I really don't think people that have worked manual labor all their life would live to their 50s in Zalanthas. I really don't.
Googled some random shit to support my theory and I found this gem..
(http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Bernard.Cohen.rankRisks.jpg)
That's really all I found, but considering at the top of that most Zalanthans are in Poverty. I believe that if you did live that long IC, it was because your character was not into manual labor and hence can't be very strong.
IF your character was in manual labor, they definately should have been strong and had more endurance then that. I've been hit by an old man that worked construction for 40 odd years, it fucking hurt.
Yeah. I figured poor, poor, xx, poor would be a legless, armless midget with muscular dystrophy considering the lack of ability those stats grant.
Quote from: Yam on August 11, 2008, 12:54:40 AM
Yeah. I figured poor, poor, xx, poor would be a legless, armless midget with muscular dystrophy considering the lack of ability those stats grant.
True enough.
What's this? Peanut butter and milk are correlated with lower life expectancies??
Early forties for a Zalanthan human is considered middle-age.
That being said, I'm sure most Zalanthans that lived that long would've aged poorly, unless they were particularly tough bastards.
According to stat and assess, 57 is also considered middle-age for a human.
Prediction: increase in number of dwarves and elves.
Quote from: Synthesis on August 11, 2008, 01:50:37 AM
Prediction: increase in number of dwarves and elves.
Hahah, are you saying you actually haven't noticed that there's been a -huge- increase in both lately?
Quote from: Yam on August 11, 2008, 01:49:50 AM
According to stat and assess, 57 is also considered middle-age for a human.
Hm.... Should probably submit something about this with the bug/idea command....
Quote from: Yam on August 10, 2008, 02:37:42 PM
Quote from: flurry on August 10, 2008, 10:15:54 AM
Quote from: Old Kank on August 09, 2008, 12:37:52 PM
There are too few really old, mundane characters out there as it stands now, so I would hope there's some counter-balance put in place to keep them from becoming useless.
I doubt the changes will make them useless. They may not be as spry as a thirty year old (and, really, why would they be?), but it's not like skills are diminishing.
The 50+ year olds I have played have had absolutely atrocious stats. It was really rather impossible to do much of anything coded with them that didn't involve magick or crafting. Combat and sneakiness are simply based too much on stats for a character with poor/poor/exceptional/below average to be useful.
What's wrong with being exceptional?
Exceptional wisdom doesn't matter much for a warrior when their blows bounce off the bare flesh of other humans.
Quote from: Yam on August 11, 2008, 02:05:57 PM
Exceptional wisdom doesn't matter much for a warrior when their blows bounce off the bare flesh of other humans.
I remember some guy playing a Byn geezer with stats I think, not much better combined with amazing wisdom that was able to whup a respectable degree of ass owing to how high he was able to get his skills. Though yeah. When Mr. Mul comes around, even good men are turned horribly inside out.
Quote from: Clearsighted on August 11, 2008, 02:33:17 PM
Quote from: Yam on August 11, 2008, 02:05:57 PM
Exceptional wisdom doesn't matter much for a warrior when their blows bounce off the bare flesh of other humans.
I remember some guy playing a Byn geezer with stats I think, not much better combined with amazing wisdom that was able to whup a respectable degree of ass owing to how high he was able to get his skills. Though yeah. When Mr. Mul comes around, even good men are turned horribly inside out.
How did you know his stats?
Quote from: Malken on August 11, 2008, 02:35:51 PM
Quote from: Clearsighted on August 11, 2008, 02:33:17 PM
Quote from: Yam on August 11, 2008, 02:05:57 PM
Exceptional wisdom doesn't matter much for a warrior when their blows bounce off the bare flesh of other humans.
I remember some guy playing a Byn geezer with stats I think, not much better combined with amazing wisdom that was able to whup a respectable degree of ass owing to how high he was able to get his skills. Though yeah. When Mr. Mul comes around, even good men are turned horribly inside out.
How did you know his stats?
He posted about it long after the fact of his death. This was years and years ago and it came up in another of these eternal discussions about stats.
The point being was that once you get to a certain stage skill wise, especially with warrior caps, stats can become quite secondary.
Bumping this to remind you guys that it will be going in with maintenance tomorrow.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on August 11, 2008, 02:04:47 AM
Quote from: Yam on August 11, 2008, 01:49:50 AM
According to stat and assess, 57 is also considered middle-age for a human.
Hm.... Should probably submit something about this with the bug/idea command....
To address this, for humans, the age range goes as follows:
< 19 young
20-29 young adult
30-40 adult
41-60 middle aged
61-80 old
> 81 ancient
'middle aged' is the down side of the slope of physical strength and endurance, not the middle as it would imply.
Assuming proportionality, here are the proportionality constants for the other races (from help age):
Mantises: 0.353
Muls: 0.882
Half-elves: 1.118
Half-giants: 1.206
Elves: 1.353
Dwarves: 1.471
Halflings: 1.765
How to use them: multiply the human age by your race's proportionality constant, and you'll get the age at which your character will switch to the next age bracket.
For example: a dwarf would be in the adult range from the ages of 30(1.471) to the age of 40(1.471). Which would be from 44.13 to 58.84.
Quote from: Morgenes on August 12, 2008, 04:22:27 PM
Quote from: Qzzrbl on August 11, 2008, 02:04:47 AM
Quote from: Yam on August 11, 2008, 01:49:50 AM
According to stat and assess, 57 is also considered middle-age for a human.
Hm.... Should probably submit something about this with the bug/idea command....
To address this, for humans, the age range goes as follows:
< 19 young
20-29 young adult
30-40 adult
41-60 middle aged
61-80 old
> 81 ancient
'middle aged' is the down side of the slope of physical strength and endurance, not the middle as it would imply.
As it rightly should. I hate made several character over the years that ranged from 50-57 and they almost all started with this:
Your strength is poor, your agility is poor,
your wisdom is exceptional, and your endurance is poor.
Of course, a middle-aged man wouldn't be keeping up with any spry twenty year old, but this does not even put them on the level of a thirteen year old. A warrior with poor strength will bounce blows off of bare skin. With a weapon.
I've tried it. A lot. A middle-aged man should something more than the physical prowess of a toddler, I think.
Actually, I can tell you for a fact that a dwarf is young until age 44 when he/she becomes adult, and at age 61 is still just adult. A staffer would have to say, but I'm pretty sure that a dwarf does not hit middle aged till around 68. Mostt likley hitting old at near 100 and ancient around 130. Though I've never taken any that far myself.
Quote from: Yam on August 12, 2008, 05:48:34 PM
I hate made several character over the years that ranged from 50-57 and they almost all started with this:
Your strength is poor, your agility is poor,
your wisdom is exceptional, and your endurance is poor.
Of course, a middle-aged man wouldn't be keeping up with any spry twenty year old, but this does not even put them on the level of a thirteen year old. A warrior with poor strength will bounce blows off of bare skin. With a weapon.
I've tried it. A lot. A middle-aged man should something more than the physical prowess of a toddler, I think.
You've made this point a few times, so I just want to chime in to say my experience having three poor stats was not nearly as bad as yours sounds. It was definitely noticeable and difficult, but still playable. And this was playing in a combat role with a guild_burglar. (Admittedly, I did ask for a age-based reroll after the character had aged five or six years.)
Indeed. It's not completely unplayable.
I was moreso making the point about how feeble supposedly middle-aged humans are. If it did not happen with such surprising regularity, it wouldn't really be a problem.
As it stands, I am under the impression that most humans from the age of 40 on are as decrepit and frail as modern day eighty year olds.
Yeah, maybe the modifiers for the "middle age" category need to be adjusted. I don't think I've started a character that old before, so I don't know.
Quote from: Morgenes on August 12, 2008, 04:12:26 PM
Bumping this to remind you guys that it will be going in with maintenance tomorrow.
I'm excited!
And a bit apprehensive, too. My character's not old enough to
suffer from the changes, but still.
Quote from: Pale Horse on August 12, 2008, 08:18:30 PM
Quote from: Morgenes on August 12, 2008, 04:12:26 PM
Bumping this to remind you guys that it will be going in with maintenance tomorrow.
I'm excited!
And a bit apprehensive, too. My character's not old enough to suffer from the changes, but still.
I am praying that mine won't be so bad that I am forced to store. My PC is quite old. Sadly i started him out like that for IC reasons, and now because of something OOC, he might be useless in his role.
I like how:
A) It was announced when I logged in that it was my PC's birthday
Welcome back ***.
Connecting to ****...
Happy Belated Birthday! You are now **.
B) One of my stat actually changed. (For the better, even!)
Quote from: Malken on August 13, 2008, 10:55:08 AM
B) One of my stat actually changed. (For the better, even!)
Two of mine did! ;)
Yeah, just a note : I seem to have taken hits to my stats and it hasn't shown up as a change in the descriptive word in score.
Another note : I never realized that your agility could drop to the point where you couldn't hold five objects. I thought that was a basic necessity, seeming to be the maximum amount of items you can use to craft something.
Quote from: Dalmeth on August 13, 2008, 11:06:16 AM
Yeah, just a note : I seem to have taken hits to my stats and it hasn't shown up as a change in the descriptive word in score.
Another note : I never realized that your agility could drop to the point where you couldn't hold five objects. I thought that was a basic necessity, seeming to be the maximum amount of items you can use to craft something.
Yah, try playing a crafter who can only hold three items at a time.
Quote from: FantasyWriter on August 13, 2008, 04:31:40 AMI am praying that mine won't be so bad that I am forced to store. My PC is quite old. Sadly i started him out like that for IC reasons, and now because of something OOC, he might be useless in his role.
Age is not an OOC issue, period. it is very much an IC issue, and the issues revolving around it are IC and should be treated as such. As you get older you will have to adjust your expectations and role.
I had three change and all got a little better. Yay me. Too bad I don't really use them for anything in my current role.
Brandon
P.S. Either way, making stats more dynamic is a great change.
Ooh, my character's starting to feel his years. *wince*
Awesome, though. I like this change so far.
Oops, sorry. last night was a whiskey night.... I drink vodka. I do like the new aging system. Sorry it I seemed whiny or bitchy with my last post.
Um, I officially like this code change.
That is all.
I predict a significant wave of PC deaths to NPC critters and unexpected upsets in sparring matches soon to follow this code change.
Quote from: Zoltan on August 13, 2008, 12:05:15 PM
Ooh, my character's starting to feel his years. *wince*
Awesome, though. I like this change so far.
I foresee more spec-app-young to young-adult characters especially for people who prefer to play long lived characters.
Definitely awkward on the characters who have lived a long while and used the request
tool for stat alterations in the past when hitting milestones in character development
via age.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on August 13, 2008, 03:18:04 PM
I predict a significant wave of PC deaths to NPC critters and unexpected upsets in sparring matches soon to follow this code change.
Yeah, right. Like most characters survive long enough for this to even matter. ::)
We need some data on the average character life span. I wouldn't put it over 2-4 IC months in-game, assuming regular logins.
Quote from: Synthesis on August 13, 2008, 09:21:27 PM
Quote from: Gimfalisette on August 13, 2008, 03:18:04 PM
I predict a significant wave of PC deaths to NPC critters and unexpected upsets in sparring matches soon to follow this code change.
Yeah, right. Like most characters survive long enough for this to even matter. ::)
We need some data on the average character life span. I wouldn't put it over 2-4 IC months in-game, assuming regular logins.
Based on a usual 25% character turnover per week, I believe I previously calculated the average character lifespan as something like 2 weeks. Maybe slightly less, I don't remember exactly.
However, there are a lot of really oooooooooooooooold characters in game, too.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on August 13, 2008, 09:25:29 PM
Quote from: Synthesis on August 13, 2008, 09:21:27 PM
Quote from: Gimfalisette on August 13, 2008, 03:18:04 PM
I predict a significant wave of PC deaths to NPC critters and unexpected upsets in sparring matches soon to follow this code change.
Yeah, right. Like most characters survive long enough for this to even matter. ::)
We need some data on the average character life span. I wouldn't put it over 2-4 IC months in-game, assuming regular logins.
Based on a usual 25% character turnover per week, I believe I previously calculated the average character lifespan as something like 2 weeks. Maybe slightly less, I don't remember exactly.
However, there are a lot of really oooooooooooooooold characters in game, too.
What we're all -really- interested in is whether there's an increase in dwarf and elf characters. Keep us posted, Data Queen!
I predict that this change will cause fewer people to be interested in playing mantis.
Quote from: Dalmeth on August 13, 2008, 11:06:16 AM
Another note : I never realized that your agility could drop to the point where you couldn't hold five objects. I thought that was a basic necessity, seeming to be the maximum amount of items you can use to craft something.
Ha! Apparently you've never played a half-giant. Some of those poor buggers can only hold 2 or 3 items at a time. But they can be massive items. ;D
Quote from: Gimfalisette on August 13, 2008, 09:25:29 PM
Quote from: Synthesis on August 13, 2008, 09:21:27 PM
Quote from: Gimfalisette on August 13, 2008, 03:18:04 PM
I predict a significant wave of PC deaths to NPC critters and unexpected upsets in sparring matches soon to follow this code change.
Yeah, right. Like most characters survive long enough for this to even matter. ::)
We need some data on the average character life span. I wouldn't put it over 2-4 IC months in-game, assuming regular logins.
Based on a usual 25% character turnover per week, I believe I previously calculated the average character lifespan as something like 2 weeks. Maybe slightly less, I don't remember exactly.
Wait, what? For real??? :o One of the reasons I started logging in less was because I calculated my characters were living an average of 3 weeks, and I felt bad about it. So I figured if I logged in less, then my character's OOC lifespan would increase, even if their days played remained the same. I feel . . . better. :D
Thanks, Statistics Girl!
Quote from: Angela Christine on August 13, 2008, 10:45:29 PM
Wait, what? For real??? :o One of the reasons I started logging in less was because I calculated my characters were living an average of 3 weeks, and I felt bad about it. So I figured if I logged in less, then my character's OOC lifespan would increase, even if their days played remained the same. I feel . . . better. :D
Thanks, Statistics Girl!
I can't honestly say 100% that this is true because I don't have access to the character database, but I have two pieces of backup for my analysis:
-- Take an average of 25 to 30% PC turnover per RL week (which you can find just from looking at the ratio of unique player logins to character applications--25% is quite normal), and imagine you have 100 new characters in a particular week. The average turnover says that after 1 week, 25% (25) of those characters will be gone, leaving 75; after 2 weeks, another 25% (19) will be gone, leaving 56; after 3 weeks, another 14 will be gone, leaving 42. So the really rough average character lifespan is about 2.5 weeks, I guess, by those numbers.
-- A lot of PCs seem to disappear in the first week, second week, and so on. New characters are well known to be highly prone to death. Two weeks just feels like the amount of time I see many characters around for.
Quote from: Hot_Dancer on August 13, 2008, 09:16:09 PM
Definitely awkward on the characters who have lived a long while and used the request
tool for stat alterations in the past when hitting milestones in character development
via age.
Morgenes anticipated that might be a problem:
QuoteThe code is assuming that you haven't had your stats changed since you rerolled at your starting age and will apply changes based on that. If you have an older character who has been rerolled for age or had stat adjustments due to age, you likely will see some changes that might adversely affect your character. If so, please submit a request about it and we will look and decide what to do on a case by case basis.
Anyone ever go from one age category to the next without any visible stat changes? I don't mind at all ... but ... I was expecting something. :D
Quote from: Thunkkin on June 07, 2009, 12:09:49 PM
Anyone ever go from one age category to the next without any visible stat changes? I don't mind at all ... but ... I was expecting something. :D
I did. I'm a bit relieved, though. I like my character's stats.
Quote from: Thunkkin on June 07, 2009, 12:09:49 PM
Anyone ever go from one age category to the next without any visible stat changes? I don't mind at all ... but ... I was expecting something. :D
Remember, good strength for a human might be "25-29."
So, you might have gone from 25 to 26. It wouldn't show that you are now 'very good', which is '30 - 33'.
Aswell, stat changes aren't guarenteed.
Phew.
Just making sure I'm normal.
Well.
"Normal."
Quote from: Morgenes on August 06, 2008, 12:52:11 PM
Just to confirm what Tzu said, this is NOT a reroll, we will be doing computations based on your current attribute and adjusting it for age. The only way you could go from good to poor strength is if you've aged enough that this is now an issue.
This is all I needed to hear. If that's the case, then I'm all up for it.
I was going to be violently against it, though, it was just a completely random reroll of stats every few ages or something. With my luck, a PC of mine who prides him/herself on strength or some stat would reroll poor =P
Stat changes I find, are most likely (almost guaranteed) to happen, when transitioning from childhood to adulthood (15-19).
I've had four birthdays before, and had one stat just absolutely refuse to go up.
I think the code has it in for my characters.
I wish this thread would die. Every time I see it I'm reminded of how vehemently I disagree with stats shifting with age.
If we're supposed to believe stats do not or should not matter, why do I see changes like this?
Quote from: Eloran on June 08, 2009, 01:31:31 AM
If we're supposed to believe stats do not or should not matter, why do I see changes like this?
Since when are we supposed to believe that stats don't matter?
Quote from: mansa on June 08, 2009, 09:25:12 AM
Quote from: Eloran on June 08, 2009, 01:31:31 AM
If we're supposed to believe stats do not or should not matter, why do I see changes like this?
Since when are we supposed to believe that stats don't matter?
And to answer your question, it makes the world more realistic and less static.
If you don't like your stats, become a spice head.
Quote from: mansa on June 08, 2009, 09:25:12 AM
Since when are we supposed to believe that stats don't matter?
Because staff and players say it all the time?
There's a difference between something being "important" and something "having an effect." Of course stats have an effect, but they are still not important.
Quote from: spawnloser on June 08, 2009, 02:05:09 PM
There's a difference between something being "important" and something "having an effect." Of course stats have an effect, but they are still not important.
::)
Quote from: Eloran on June 08, 2009, 01:31:31 AM
I wish this thread would die. Every time I see it I'm reminded of how vehemently I disagree with stats shifting with age.
If we're supposed to believe stats do not or should not matter, why do I see changes like this?
Because the immortals were tired of rerolling characters who went from age 13 to age 20 and requested a stat change and then automated it.
Quote from: mansa on June 08, 2009, 03:50:18 PM
Quote from: Eloran on June 08, 2009, 01:31:31 AM
I wish this thread would die. Every time I see it I'm reminded of how vehemently I disagree with stats shifting with age.
If we're supposed to believe stats do not or should not matter, why do I see changes like this?
Because the immortals were tired of rerolling characters who went from age 13 to age 20 and requested a stat change and then automated it.
Eloran makes baby jesus cry.
Quote from: Eloran on June 08, 2009, 03:44:08 PM
Quote from: spawnloser on June 08, 2009, 02:05:09 PM
There's a difference between something being "important" and something "having an effect." Of course stats have an effect, but they are still not important.
::)
Trust me, if you get old, the effect is important. >:(
Regardless of how important stats are (or should be), to me the changes with age make a lot of sense. Previously, it was way out of line with the starting age modifiers. At least those are synched up now.