Armageddon General Discussion Board

I'm of the believe that there is WAY WAY too drastic a difference between Average and Extremely good, when it comes to Agility, Endurance and Strength. Let alone Poor-Absolutely Incredible. Widom doesn't seem so drastically effected, so I've left it out. The very fact that a half-giant can end up only holding one item, and an elf can end up without being able to wield anything, is fairly telling of how drastic this range can be when taken into the scope of racial stat ranges. We're basically scraping the very bottom of how low we can make stats go. So low that your character might in fact, be useless at things without staff intervention.

Yes, we have priority. Yes, we have Reroll. But that has NOTHING to do with that I'm describing. My problem is not a lack of good stats, or a lack of the stats that I want. My problem is how massively different a human with AI strength is, from a human with even good strength. I've seen humans with AI strength landing more vicious and grievous blows than half-giants. Like... That should never, ever, ever happen. An AI strength human shouldn't even be comparable to a normal Half-Giant.

You could just knock off the very worst, and best stats, and instead of some random number determining how you stack up to others, it would come down more to experience and time played. You don't even have to get rid of them entirely. The differences between stat ranges swing too drastically.


For reference:

poor
below average
average
above average
good
very good
extremely good
excellent
absolutely incredible

Is what we have. I'd much rather see poor and AI completely removed, and rename the stats accordingly (excellent would be AI). Hell I would even be okay with removing below average and excellent. The end result would be less whining about stats, less impact from stats on characters. Less freak god-like characters who were just lucky enough to get a good roll.

I like the idea of having a base 'stats can't be this low'. Rather than removing it, though you essentially are removing it.

I'm moderately confident that more than just strength determines how "hard" a hit is.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on December 05, 2015, 02:04:16 PM
I'm moderately confident that more than just strength determines how "hard" a hit is.

Sure, that doesn't change the fact that a human is hitting harder than a half-giant.

I am blissfully oblivious to any "massive" differences between "good" and "AI." Considering that "good" is a few steps away from AI, however, I'll take the guess that there's supposed to be a "massive" difference.

The only time stats mean anything to me is when they hinder my ability to improve at a reasonable rate compared to my actual attempts to do so. Seeing as how I'm basically the anti-twink, this is a pretty rare occurrence.

So hitting harder isn't the same as being stronger.

Quote from: Lizzie on December 05, 2015, 02:15:00 PM
I am blissfully oblivious to any "massive" differences... I'll take the guess that there's supposed to be a "massive" difference.

Okay, just because that was they way it was designed, doesn't mean it can't be made better, or that it wasn't poorly designed in the first place. Do you think there SHOULD be a massive difference, is what I'm asking.

Both from a game-play standpoint, and a realism standpoint, I think it should not be as broad as it is.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on December 05, 2015, 02:34:52 PM
So hitting harder isn't the same as being stronger.

Are you going to bring this tangent around to the topic at hand?

I don't know how the variances play out, but I think that's really the question.

Suppose character A has 1% better stats than character B, other things being equal.  How often will character A win in the sparring ring?  I'm willing to bet that the numbers are far from 51%/49%.  Especially if any kind of heavy armor is involved.

If that's the case (and I'm just guessing -- I have no way of verifying this) then narrowing the ranges isn't going to have much of a perceived effect on these "massive" differences.

But f trained humans are hitting harder than trained half-giants, I'd agree something is strange there.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 05, 2015, 02:43:30 PM

Quote from: Marauder Moe on December 05, 2015, 02:34:52 PM
So hitting harder isn't the same as being stronger.

Are you going to bring this tangent around to the topic at hand?

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 05, 2015, 01:51:16 PMI've seen humans with AI strength landing more vicious and grievous blows than half-giants. Like... That should never, ever, ever happen. An AI strength human shouldn't even be comparable to a normal Half-Giant.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on December 05, 2015, 02:53:53 PM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 05, 2015, 02:43:30 PM

Quote from: Marauder Moe on December 05, 2015, 02:34:52 PM
So hitting harder isn't the same as being stronger.

Are you going to bring this tangent around to the topic at hand?

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 05, 2015, 01:51:16 PMI've seen humans with AI strength landing more vicious and grievous blows than half-giants. Like... That should never, ever, ever happen. An AI strength human shouldn't even be comparable to a normal Half-Giant.

Yes, I know you're focusing on that one example.  It's definitely not the only occurrence of broad-ranges coming off as unrealistic. And the other factors beyond strength that effect the damage you do? They are very small, in my experience, when compared to the strength stat.

We also had a staff test recently that showed a moderately skilled but average-stat warrior consistently wiping the floor with a fresh but AI-stat warrior.

Anyway, I disagree, and voted as such.

In my experiences, stats only matter at the beginning, when skills are low/sub Journeyman, and when skills are at high advanced/master. And yes, all things being equal (equal offense/defense among the attacker and defender, and equal weapon skill) a human shouldn't be hitting harder than a half-giant. However, since the help files suggest agility affects attack speed, its possible a human will hit with these 15-20pt hits more often than a half-giant, who might attack 1/3 the times a human does, or less, and thus run the possibility that they only get an 8pt hit.

I do feel that the ranges for some races are in fact very broad, because I don't think that they are standardized across races (human good to very good isn't the same range as half-giant good to very good), however I don't see it as much of a problem. Narrowing the ranges might only serve to homogenize the stats of players across races, and rolling an EG strength on your warrior wouldn't be nearly as significant.

However, I will say that I DO agree that 9 categorical ranges on stats is too many, and would not mind having 7 (an odd number is totally needed to make a real median). However, I wouldn't want to change the numbers at all, which would mean the range between good and very good just got wider. So. I guess I'm almost literally on the fence.

Blah I knew I should have added an "on the fence" option. Done now.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 05, 2015, 02:43:30 PM

Quote from: Lizzie on December 05, 2015, 02:15:00 PM
I am blissfully oblivious to any "massive" differences... I'll take the guess that there's supposed to be a "massive" difference.

Okay, just because that was they way it was designed, doesn't mean it can't be made better, or that it wasn't poorly designed in the first place. Do you think there SHOULD be a massive difference, is what I'm asking.

Both from a game-play standpoint, and a realism standpoint, I think it should not be as broad as it is.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on December 05, 2015, 02:34:52 PM
So hitting harder isn't the same as being stronger.

Are you going to bring this tangent around to the topic at hand?

I'm one of the people who clicked on 'no opinion.' Mostly because I don't know what you mean by "massive" nor do I particularly care. But for the sake of discussion - here's a thought of mine:

Using this scale:

poor = 1
below average = 2
average = 3
above average = 4
good = 5
very good = 6
extremely good = 7
excellent  = 8
absolutely incredible = 9

Good is just slightly better than half the quality of AI. To me, that means massively. If it is just slightly better than half the quality of AI, with 1 being the worst (rather than 0), then yes - I think it should be massively worse than AI. If by "massively" you mean an 8 instead of a 9, then no - I don't think it should be massively. I think it should be extraordinarily massively to the extreme. If by "massively" you mean 2 instead of 9, then I also think it shouldn't be massively - I would say "somewhat worse than fair to middlin."

But using the scale of 1-9 with 9 being AI and good being 5, then yes - that's massively, and that's okiedokie by me.


Also I avoid the realism card because elves, magickers, desert planet with three moons, mindbenders, sorcerer kings, mekillots.

I personally like the broad range of stats and think it adds variety to the game.

I agree with Moe that while strength is a factor, it's not the only factor in determining damage. If you need proof of that just look at your day 1 sparring hits vs your day 20. In regards to your point about humans hitting harder than HGs I disagree with that as well.  My personal experience is that a HG with below avg strength hits waaaay harder than any other race I've played provided all other things are equal (weapon, experience, target armor etc...).

What I don't understand in regards to stats is if there is presumably a short list of "unplayable stats" why are they even rollable?  It's not as big a deal with the HG example because that's a karma required race, but if I was a brand newbie and rolled an elf that couldn't wield a weapon, I'd spend a total of 15 minutes before leaving and never coming back. it just seems like that problem has a five minute code fix to deal with it proactively rather than reactively. 

I'm not trying to derail your topic, so sorry if that last part was slightly tangential.  The bottom line for me is that the difference between awesome stats and crappy ones is one of the things I like about Arm.

For what it's worth, those examples that I used in an Ask the Staff answer (which you then took as examples for the OP) are extremely contrived and highly unlikely. The lowest agility half-giant I could possibly make could still wield two items. The lowest strength elf I could make could still wield daggers and other light weapons.

While I can't go into excessive detail, it's safe to say that changing the stat system isn't as simple as knocking off some descriptors at either end of the spectrum. Each race has a range of base stat numbers for each of the four stats. The stat you roll is modified by your age. Your idea is already kind of implemented - the base rolls already cover "below average" to "exceptional" - it's other factors that can push a roll down to poor, or up to absolutely incredible. The descriptor is a vague measure of your stat, relative to others of your race. A poor strength half-giant is still stronger than an AI strength human, and a poor agility elf is going to be faster than an AI agility half-giant. That said, as I noted in the reply to the ATS question, there's an easy way to avoid having bad stats, if you're willing to accept the fact that there's more behind a "poor" stat than you think.

That's all I can really say without giving too much away. These discussions tend to end up in anecdotal arguments about damage and who can take whom in a fight. Hopefully what I said sheds at least a little light on the whole process of rolling.

That sounds like a pretty solid explanation and seems very reasonable now knowing the examples listed were super unlikely and not as utterly crippling (light weapons vs. no weapons).  Thanks!

I, too, think stat ranges are too broad. The gdb is pointless for discussing this kind of thing though.

Pretty much. I should have kept the OP simple. People are focusing on the wrong things.

Quote from: not_really_mean on December 05, 2015, 06:49:39 PM
I personally like the broad range of stats and think it adds variety to the game.

This is a sentiment that I completely understand. But that variety comes with a cost, and that cost is creativity.  To me I'd much rather have experience and roleplay and skills, and time spent in-game be the true decider of how good your PC is, and how different they are from everyone else. I think randomized stats plays too big of a factor in how our characters are shaped.

I'd much rather see AI as something handed out to people who've spent years in-game training. Not just to the person who got lucky on a dice roll. I'd much rather extremely weak/strong, fast/slow, enduring/frail be a product of roleplay, not a crap shoot where the majorty of the time you get a chance of having 2 high stats and 2 low stats.

I would much rather see less people gaming the character creation process with perfect combinations of age, height, race, and guild just to mitigate that randomness.




Nergal thanks for a little insight into how things work. I know that it isn't as simple as knocking a few things off either end of a spectrum. I would be just as happy with the range's for stats lowered and the number of levels of attributes stay the same. It's just poor would now be slightly better and AI slightly worse.

The thing I have noticed with statd, is that the difference between bring an 'uber-demi god' of combat is having just enough strength to beat someones armor and or natural resistance (Im looking at u dorfs) And so long as you dont get hit you should be fine until you take a crit.
I mean I had a dorf warrio fresh out of the gate die to several nasty critters... After about 10 mins of combat and dealing plenty of damage simply because the attacks werent bouncing.
Now take a look at an Elf with below average strength. Not only can they barely hold a pokey stick they cant pair it with gear or armor. Sure at high skill they can pwn things since lulz elf agi.

I have never had the chance to play a HG but i will admit, i have seen humans do as much damage as a HG albeit not at the same consistancy. Just my thoughts on it.

Edit: I actually think a good idea to deal with the crippling stats would be to allow stat bumps again. While sure there is definately ways to abuse it i still think that elf who cant wield a wood sparring sword will be able to strengthen himself by you know... Swinging a rock at stuff I guess?
Or that HG should be able to work out how to improve how much he can carry because you know, Practice makes perfect. If it does get implemented in any form it should totally be capped on the amount though. Only one or two points at most.

I am personally still of opinion that stats shouldnt even be in the game. Everyone should be average statted and maybe have healthy foodstuffs affecting your stats.

If we added a whole 'do shit ig to level up stats' thing everyone would be ripped.

Quote from: Jihelu on December 05, 2015, 11:35:34 PM
If we added a whole 'do shit ig to level up stats' thing everyone would be ripped.

Naw, dude. People die fast. And it could easily be something that takes a lot of time.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 06, 2015, 12:27:13 AM

Quote from: Jihelu on December 05, 2015, 11:35:34 PM
If we added a whole 'do shit ig to level up stats' thing everyone would be ripped.

Naw, dude. People die fast. And it could easily be something that takes a lot of time.

Bruh I'll bench every god damn day so help me god.

When you see a human doing vicious/unspeakable/frightening damage, it may look like they're doing the same damage.

A human probably isn't doing 50-60 damage on a body hit, however. Half-giants can and do regularly knock off about that much hp just slicing your chest up.

I once had a half-giant do 110 damage on a neck-shot to me.

You won't see many humans doing that. Ever. I don't even think it's POSSIBLE for a human to do that kind of damage without assistance from our disgusting magicker pals.

Yes, I think it's fair to say that not all "unspeakable damage" damages are created equal. In fact as the last descriptor for damage, it covers the largest range of damage amounts.

People keep going back to my Giant example.  :-\ Fine guys, I'll argue more about the Giant example with you.

Quote from: Nergal on December 06, 2015, 08:55:16 AM
Yes, I think it's fair to say that not all "unspeakable damage" damages are created equal. In fact as the last descriptor for damage, it covers the largest range of damage amounts.

It's also fair to assume I took that into account, which is why I mentioned Vicious, as well as Grievous hits... Isn't "unspeakable damage" the last descriptor for damage?. It's also fair to assume I was talking about damage on warriors of similar days played (0). (At least I think these things are fair to assume, sometimes I wonder if you all think I'm retarded or something)

No, you won't see humans landing 100+ dmg blows. You won't see giants do that very often either. You get them trained and yeah, they can do it, but a High strength human warrior who is trained can also land 50+ dmg blows. A High strength giant, somewhat trained can land 30-50 dmg shots on a pretty common basis, unlike a human. A low strength half-giant though? I've had a blow bounce off of a scrab shell before(Memory is a little fuzzy on this example, I will admit). I've had kills where I never got anything over "very hard" and "wound" before. I couldn't have been the only person to notice things like this.

I suppose if we really wanted to focus on the "weak giant, strong human" example an IMM could just load them both up to kill a scrab and compare the damage ranges. Maybe everything I've seen was just bad luck, in regards to this example. Who knows.

The weapon probably also factors into that.

Quote from: Saellyn on December 06, 2015, 03:01:25 PM
The weapon probably also factors into that.

We all know that unless the sdesc says wicked, war, or walloping that all weapons are created equal. (points to someone who mastercrafts me a walloping oversized banhammer)

I actually KIND of agree with Dar in that foods could/should affect stats in some way. Like, when parched/starving, rather than losing movement points and regen ability right off the top, you start losing points in endurance. Spitballing, on that one.

But I'm still not convinced either way that stat ranges are too broad, or too narrow. Perhaps its status quo, but homogenizing the descriptors doesn't feel like the answer to me. I'd be more for the descriptors to not just be standardized ranges, but say the difference between human EG strength to AI would be 5 points, but the difference between VG and EG would only be 3, etc. So that the higher rolls really are rare, AND powerful.

That would at least see more people rolling closer to the "average" descriptor.

If you made them broader you would need to make everything else more powerful. Since you know even npc's have stats.

RGS, your first two examples are exaggerations, and Nergal mentioned what the truth is.
Two inventory spaces isn't unplayable. The weakest of elves can still use light weapons.

A poor str HG is stronger then an AI str human, but in terms of damage they can be comparable.
Damage isn't the best metric for comparing strength scores though. It has other variables.

The high end of stats isn't really an issue in a game like Arm. Plenty of things can still kill the AI strength warrior.
The low end of stats can be fun to roleplay, but isn't fun at all from certain code-side things. Two inventory spaces would be a pain in the ass. I think Synth mentioned once about having a Delf that couldn't kill anything, and bounced off every hit.
The low end of stats makes playing old or young characters annoying and frustrating.

I think the range should be narrowed, at the lowest end of stats.

Quote from: Medivh on December 06, 2015, 05:55:34 PM
RGS, your first two examples are exaggerations,

Even if they're exaggerated in their own context it's not a big enough difference to take away from the point that we're skimming the top and the bottom of stat ranges.

The whole point is that a human doing comparable damage to a half-giant doesn't make any sense. It doesn't matter if Strength isn't the only thing affecting damage. Because I promise you it is the single most significant thing affecting damage at 0 days played.

Two inventory spaces isn't unplayable. The weakest of elves can use light weapons. Doesn't really matter, does it? I'm not debating play-ability, I'm simply pointing out how low and high we allow stats to fluctuate based on randomness. So what if it doesn't hit the very bottom of you not being able to pick up anything or wield anything... The fact we even get close to that on one end(numerous times I've seen elves not able to wield sparring weapons or shields), and an elf with AI strength is landing Very hard to vicious strikes on the other end, sort of makes my point.

Yes, everything I've based this on is personal experience and has been loosely defined. It's not anything I've written down data points for. It's just something you get a feel for after going through a lot of PC's. The difference between a PC with low stats and high stats is massive. Usually after someone says something like that is when people start to say things like "yes, but skills are much more important, and you can still be a badass with poor stats." Which would be once again, completely missing the point.

As an interesting aside, lowering the range would make the difference between races much more noticeable. Which I think would be pretty cool, because it would make each race feel like they have more of a niche, instead of basically being comparable to a fast/strong human.

The exaggeration on the elf example is massive. There is a huge difference between being able to use weapons, and not using any at all. It does take away from your point. The range between poor and AI isn't as big as you thought, and your proof is from staff. The ranges are big, but you haven't proved that it is an issue. You haven't shown that this change is something we should want.

Your change wouldn't cause less whining, because there will always be whining. Unless everyone just has average for whatever race, or we do point-buy.
Your change does make race impact stats more then it currently does.
Your change doesn't make less god-like PCs, because stats don't do that on their own.
You're not arguing for play-ability sake.

You're suggestion makes the difference in stats between races more noticeable.
I think the stat differences are okay as is. The only race that doesn't see anything that noticeable are half-elves compared to humans. Which makes sense to me.

On the Hgiant's example
Damage isn't the only thing strength does. In encumbrance and weight of weapon you can wield that poor str HG can do things the AI str human cannot do what so ever. That HG can hit harder then that human ever could.
If strength is the biggest thing affecting damage, then even at 0 days played the HG will still do more damage then that human.
Yes a HG and human should be able to do comparable damage, because both of those races can make attacks that only -just- make contact. And even with that any HG will always do more damage then any human. (Not counting in magick)

Maybe you would like to see a change in how strength factors into damage?

I think RGS did point out how the gap is massive. I mean the fact i have seen an elf unable to hold a goodbsized weapon. Eg i see elves constantly unable to wield bone shortswords. Thats the case for low end elf str. High end elf str im seeing those plucky bastards one handing s bastard sword with ease and doing hits of at least very hard half the time.
Now i agree you do get freakishly strong people sometimes and you grt uber durable guys at times. But the thing is you do gimped by 'lulz i haz 2 2hand a woody daggers

He has said he isn't arguing for play-ability sake.
I actually do agree, and voted so, on the stated change. Just on different reasoning. Mostly because the lowest end of stats is very painful to play. Poor elf str sucks dick.

I think just being able to preview the stats you'll end up with and having a chance to re-prioritize or re-order them before playing will allow us to avoid awful low-end stats blues. (Or at least, to have the ones we can live with). One possibility would be to just re-label the "stat priority" concept as "assigning bonuses" Roll four times and add them to the desired stats, of which you have some random base roll.

Or whatever. There's a bunch of ways to make the process make more sense and be more predictable, while maintaining the natural variation we crave

This post a ways back might help explain some of the reasoning behind why I like the idea, Medivh. Admittedly there are multiple ways to fix the problems I've talked about, as Harmless just stated.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 05, 2015, 07:54:32 PM

Quote from: not_really_mean on December 05, 2015, 06:49:39 PM
I personally like the broad range of stats and think it adds variety to the game.

This is a sentiment that I completely understand. But that variety comes with a cost, and that cost is creativity.  To me I'd much rather have experience and roleplay and skills, and time spent in-game be the true decider of how good your PC is, and how different they are from everyone else. I think randomized stats plays too big of a factor in how our characters are shaped.

I'd much rather see AI as something handed out to people who've spent years in-game training. Not just to the person who got lucky on a dice roll. I'd much rather extremely weak/strong, fast/slow, enduring/frail be a product of roleplay, not a crap shoot where the majorty of the time you get a chance of having 2 high stats and 2 low stats.

I would much rather see less people gaming the character creation process with perfect combinations of age, height, race, and guild just to mitigate that randomness.

Quote from: Medivh on December 06, 2015, 08:37:50 PM
He has said he isn't arguing for play-ability sake.

When I said that I meant in relation to low stats being annoying. There are other play-ability factors.


My OP wasn't very clear. At the end of the day I'd be happy with any system that:

      A: Pushes PC's closer to average stats than the current does and is less random.
      B: Puts exceptionally good or bad stats in the realm of boosts/nerfs from roleplay, special apps, magick, spice, poisons

There is another problem with strength that everyone forgets to talk about it. Not only can high strength characters wield heavier weapons that do more damage (many very good weapons have hefty strength requirments) but also are able to mitigate damage by comfortably wearing heavier armors.

Staff often tell us about how they model these scenarios. I'd like to hear about a test in which a 10 day dwarf warrior with wicked stats and the best equipment they can wear fairs against a 30 day elf warrior with lowish strength, also wearing the best equipment they can wear.

Experiments done in this fashion would work a lot better if there is only one variable.

Every time I see someone talk about pitting this against that, there's always two or three variables in the equation and I end up wondering how you get any kind of solid answer.

Pit a 30 day, high strength with best gear against a 30 day, low strength with best gear. That might actually tell you something.

Quote from: Alesan on December 07, 2015, 10:01:11 AM
Experiments done in this fashion would work a lot better if there is only one variable.

Every time I see someone talk about pitting this against that, there's always two or three variables in the equation and I end up wondering how you get any kind of solid answer.

Pit a 30 day, high strength with best gear against a 30 day, low strength with best gear. That might actually tell you something.

Only if they had the exact same training, against the exact same opposition and their "low" is the exact same numeric "low" value (remember all of these stats are in a range of numeric values - so for every "Warrior A" with 5 "poor" strength, there'll be a Warrior B with 6 "poor" strength. Obviously the 6 will be a higher "low" compared to the 5. Since none of us has any way of knowing which *exact* value anyone is at, at any given moment, any experiments will be flawed - at best. Utterly pointless, at worst.

Quote from: Lizzie on December 07, 2015, 11:32:49 AM

Quote from: Alesan on December 07, 2015, 10:01:11 AM
Experiments done in this fashion would work a lot better if there is only one variable.

Every time I see someone talk about pitting this against that, there's always two or three variables in the equation and I end up wondering how you get any kind of solid answer.

Pit a 30 day, high strength with best gear against a 30 day, low strength with best gear. That might actually tell you something.

Only if they had the exact same training, against the exact same opposition and their "low" is the exact same numeric "low" value (remember all of these stats are in a range of numeric values - so for every "Warrior A" with 5 "poor" strength, there'll be a Warrior B with 6 "poor" strength. Obviously the 6 will be a higher "low" compared to the 5. Since none of us has any way of knowing which *exact* value anyone is at, at any given moment, any experiments will be flawed - at best. Utterly pointless, at worst.

You're exactly right, but I was more or less assuming we were talking about staff doing the experiments and that's what I based my assumption on, staff making sure all the parameters are identical save for the one variable you are trying to get an answer on.

While I feel it should be more equal, if there wasnt any difference in stats then your 2 days played uber buff warrior couldnt be that exeptional student every Sarge wants to teach because we all know everyone deep down wants the strongest guy to help them.

Split out a couple more stats maybe, or make carry capacity a factor of end and str? It is a little silly imo that basically all gickers always prioritise wisdom because there's little reason not to. More options there might vary it up some.

Make wearing armour a skill that helps reduce its capacity, reduce krathstriking in armour and helps improve its use a little. Could have a few types too :)

I'd be for a couple more uses for stats other than what we have. Honestly outside of a magicker, wisdom isn't a huge deal and nobody seems to care about it... endurance is a random roll off the endurance for your stats anyways, so I don't see many people putting it higher than 3rd on the list unless they want to be a TankDwarf. Strength and Agility kind of have a number of things that they affect, I just wish wisdom and endurance affected more than the OOC concept of skill timers, language acquisition maybe but mostly anecdotal, and "poison resistance" but last I checked the _tol variables don't invoke a single bit of code.

Endurance affects skill timers? Idk if they actually do but it doesnt make much sense for it to have any effect.

Vicious, grievous, wound, etc. are all exactly the same hp damage range, regardless of who or what is hitting.

Horrendous and unspeakable are exactly the same thing, from a different point of view, and the range on that is from whatever to infinity, because I suppose whoever wrote the code grew weary of finding increasingly-horrible-sounding descriptors.

Could top it with the fatty templar slashes you breed dicking your ego

Wisdom is a decently good deal on non magickers. You wouldn't main prioritize it but there is extremely noticable difference with high wis. Wis also affects skills such as scan.

Having tried and played on a range of stats.

Low strength on a half-elf on a ranger is the biggest ooc/ic annoyance in the world.  It effects how much you can carry, how much armor you can use, and how hard you hit (I think).  
I've ran into a couple of times that the stat roll I got just wasn't very 'playable' in a code sense.  Being a inept weakling is not my ideal of escapism and I dare to say a few others could agree to the sentiment.

Not all of us are paragons of role playing whom will spend months to what equates to a codely gimped combat oriented character.

Storage is an option, suicide is a strangely fitting way out what could amount to a bunch of wasted time (This below average strength, Good bye cruel universe). All bet frowned upon. Nothing states though, characters can't take stupid risks are the player can feign IC ignorance.  It happens, it's discouraged but it happens.

I honestly wish there was ways to alleviate that rather frustrating point.

Again I'm thinking solely in the context of a list of rangers/warriors I played and what I noticed on the whole being an issue from the blow average-good range to the Very good to exceptional range.   Bad stats are a bummer and in the end, will kill a character concept (Either by stupid risks or out right storage) and then creates double work for staff, a storage request and another character app.  

I think no one is a stranger to a hand crafted background of a character you envision being strong, only to roll in game with a unimpressive if not down right pathetic strength roll.  Or crafting a hopefuly lively interesting character, to only find the coded side of things their gimp and will remain that way for ever compared to their peers.  It's a bummer, it be nice there was something more then just priority roll and building concepts around ages so you get decent stats... as oppose to just rolling with the concept you want without worrying having -too bad- of stats.  

Eh, stats just suck, especially if you're fond of combat roles. Priority helps but RNG will RNG, some days.
So I voted yea, I wish the lower range just... didn't suck so bad.  It's bad enough that average-good feels light years behind EG or exceptional.   High stats is a terrible drug because the supplier is just so inconsistent.

I've ALWAYS been in favor of a pt system. Nothing is more upsetting than rolling up a character idea you're excited about and getting shit-tastic stats on both of your rolls that essentially ruin the whole concept.

While I do love me some good stats, and I have noticed that any thing with a high strength roll is amazing as fuck in combat. I do like the rp of having a slightly weaker character. Well over a year ago I had a character with fairly shit stats. Like below strength above average agi and so on and so forth.
From a 'Im gon rek ur assholez all nyt long' point of view sure it sucked. I could barely kill scrabs. Granted the agi meant i could just dodge all day long and very slowly barely graze its ass to death. But granted the character never got to a decent level of fighting skill so who knows that char could well have eventually wound up being the bomb at some point years down the line.

Quote from: Majikal on December 08, 2015, 03:15:58 PM
I've ALWAYS been in favor of a pt system. Nothing is more upsetting than rolling up a character idea you're excited about and getting shit-tastic stats on both of your rolls that essentially ruin the whole concept.

The hulking half-giant struggles to hold a bone pick.

Yeah. I had a great character idea once soiled completely by shit stats. It'd be one thing to have one poor. Maybe even two poor and something above average at least - but no. It was something like, poor, poor, average, below average.

Jayzus.

Stats are important, no matter what you do. Unless you're purely a flavor role and you don't plan on using any skills. But those extra few HPs when you get stabbed by someone that doesn't like your haircut on them could be the difference between life or death!

I had a combat sponsored role with stats so shit-tastic I entered the game with.
Someone says ooc: lol, those stats.
I rerolled into further shitty stats which immediately got a....
someone says ooc: Ouch.
I did a lot of cussing in the hall of kings.

I got an unheard of THIRD reroll they were so bad.
They were still shit, though slightly, very slightly less shitty than the other two.

My first day on the job I bring in some new employees fresh out of chargen and they wiped my ass with training, one being a GUILD MERCHANT. With some effort I turned them into a capable pc but man was it rough in the beginning, especially because I didn't want to focus training skills as much as I wanted to just roleplay. It's eyeopening when you see just how much stats matter in a combat class, they matter far too much to be given to a pair of dice throws.

I think point buy is the way to go as well. If nothing else, do something like... all stats start at average base, you get, just as an imaginary figure, 2d6 in extra points, and can lower stats to poor to gain more points from the lowering, but still allow for pcs to have a 'varied' amount of stat ranges, but give the player more say in how they fit with the character concept in question to most appropriately fit with the pc they're trying to make.

Great stats kill your noob as well.. :P
I agree with point buy too. It gives you three choices with the story lines they lead to; badass, weakling /clumsy fool, or random chromosome shuffle.

ALL OF MY FAVORITE CHARACTERS OF ALL TIME ALL HAD SHITTY STATS IN ALL CATEGORIES™

Polls are fucking weird. It's pretty much a guarantee on the GDB that many people will disagree with your suggested change if it alters something already there, instead of just adds something new. People also like to play devils advocate irregardless of their personal opinions.  It always leaves me feeling a bit sour. I honestly thought this was another one of those things that was obviously an issue for a lot of people that quite a few would agree on. All I can say is nothing big will change due to the player-base because we can never agree. It's always staff-decision regardless of conflicting player opinions, that has brought big change(TONS of people hated the idea of Tuluk being removed whenever It was suggested, for instance.)

Talking about it on the GDB is purely masturbatory. I am just glad staff doesn't weigh all opinions equally or make decisions based on the majority. Because most of us would make some really shitty games.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 09, 2015, 04:43:15 PM
Polls are fucking weird. It's pretty much a guarantee on the GDB that many people will disagree with your suggested change if it alters something already there, instead of just adds something new. People also like to play devils advocate irregardless of their personal opinions.  

It may also be more of a "silent majority" at play. In a game of 100+ people, 4-5 advocating for something on the GDB may seem like there is a lot of player desire for the change. Then you make a pole and the other 95+ vote  :-\

Quote from: Jave on December 09, 2015, 04:58:21 PM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 09, 2015, 04:43:15 PM
Polls are fucking weird. It's pretty much a guarantee on the GDB that many people will disagree with your suggested change if it alters something already there, instead of just adds something new. People also like to play devils advocate irregardless of their personal opinions.  

It may also be more of a "silent majority" at play. In a game of 100+ people, 4-5 advocating for something on the GDB may seem like there is a lot of player desire for the change. Then you make a pole and the other 95+ vote  :-\

It's also a vote per GDB alias and not per IP address, so it's pretty easy to shift the balance your way if you really want to.

Just throwing this idea out there...

What if certain guilds could never roll below a given level of stat?

What if warriors were always at least good strength? What if assassins were always at least good agility?

Would that be too gamey or jarring? Does anyone really WANT to play the low strength, clumsy warrior who can't be looked at without needing a bandage? Or the assassin who can't lift his own dagger?

I voted no because I like that there is a lot of variation in how your character plays depending on how you prioritize your stats and choose your starting age. I haven't had much trouble getting what I was aiming for by tweaking those two parameters. The complaints in this thread just seem overblown to me--they don't align with my own experiences.

If I were to change one thing about how stats work right now, it would be making endurance more useful.

Quote from: Jave on December 09, 2015, 04:58:21 PM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 09, 2015, 04:43:15 PM
Polls are fucking weird. It's pretty much a guarantee on the GDB that many people will disagree with your suggested change if it alters something already there, instead of just adds something new. People also like to play devils advocate irregardless of their personal opinions.  

It may also be more of a "silent majority" at play. In a game of 100+ people, 4-5 advocating for something on the GDB may seem like there is a lot of player desire for the change. Then you make a pole and the other 95+ vote  :-\

Total unashamed unrelated to OP comment here, but this jumped a thought in my head: Arm sort of has different parties.

Conservatives.  Things are fine as they are.  Do not change things.

Progressives.  More changes!

MUSHers.  No new code, less code!  Do things via emote and the virtual world and imagination.

MUDers.  More code.  It's a game, dammit.

Wizturbo's Faction. Magick is awesome.  (I'm with you Wizturbo.)

And just like with regular politics, it's all some mash in the middle

You may resume your thread.  I had more to say about elections and a senate and a union of players and a union of staff,  but then I got bored.

I'd like to add Jobbers for those who see nothing wrong with playing 40 hours a week just to accompish something :P

Quote from: Drayab on December 09, 2015, 05:54:01 PM
I voted no because I like that there is a lot of variation in how your character plays depending on how you prioritize your stats and choose your starting age. I haven't had much trouble getting what I was aiming for by tweaking those two parameters. The complaints in this thread just seem overblown to me--they don't align with my own experiences.

If I were to change one thing about how stats work right now, it would be making endurance more useful.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 05, 2015, 01:51:16 PM
My problem is not a lack of good stats, or a lack of the stats that I want. My problem is how massively different a human with AI strength is, from a human with even good strength.

I know a few people keep bringing it around to unplayable low stats, but man I really tried for that not to happen.

I know exactly how to game the system to get stats as close to where I want them to be. But that isn't really how a roleplaying intensive game should be played, in my opinion. It gives you variety, but it takes away from creativity. It also benefits veterans over new players. Also that variety could still be there, through magick and spice and special applications instead of a crap shoot gamble everyone gets forced to play.

I'd love if both endurance and wisdom were more useful though, that I agree with.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 05, 2015, 01:51:16 PM
It gives you variety, but it takes away from creativity.

Yeah, I just disagree with that premise. If anything, I think shrinking the stat range will reduce the amount of creativity I can exercise when I craft my characters insofar as their stats matter to my concept. What you're proposing will homogenize characters. My strong characters won't be so strong; my quick characters won't be so quick.

Edited to add:

And just to be clear, the unplayably low stat issue is overblown in my opinion. I'm made lots of characters and it's never been an issue.

I also disagree that this is a veteran advantage situation. I think the way to get stats that fit a given concept is very simple, and anyone could figure it out by doing some forum searches and reading the help files. It's not hidden knowledge that can only be learned IG.

Just chiming in...

I like broad stat ranges.   I don't want a "fair" world.  I like physical inequalities and inequities, straight from char-gen. 

I do have some criticisms of the current system though:

1)  I would love it if I could see my character's stats before I write up my description and background.  For instance, if I happen to get an AI strength, I would like to alter my PC's description and maybe even their background to reflect that.  If you've got an AI strength, you probably didn't grow up as a tailor's assistant.  And you probably don't have a description with words like "frail, spindly, lanky, etc".
2)  If someone wants to play a PC that's statistically above average, I think there should be an option to do so via char-gen points, special applications or karma instead of having to rely solely on chance.   

Quote from: wizturbo on December 09, 2015, 08:10:29 PM
1)  I would love it if I could see my character's stats before I write up my description and background.  For instance, if I happen to get an AI strength, I would like to alter my PC's description and maybe even their background to reflect that.  If you've got an AI strength, you probably didn't grow up as a tailor's assistant.  And you probably don't have a description with words like "frail, spindly, lanky, etc".

Neat idea. Personally, when I make a character I operate under the assumption that I'll be able to get very or extremely good in my number one prioritized stat (assuming a character in the prime age range), and I develop my background and description accordingly. If I do get lucky and get the coveted exceptional or even AI (I have never rolled an AI in strength), I may submit a description change down the line with some extra beef packed on. I did that once for an exceptional strength human. She was a lot of fun.

Quote from: wizturbo on December 09, 2015, 08:10:29 PM
2)  If someone wants to play a PC that's statistically above average, I think there should be an option to do so via char-gen points, special applications or karma instead of having to rely solely on chance.   

Please, no. I never, never want to see stat boosts. You want to talk about veteran advantage? This is the worst kind. The RNG may be a cruel mistress, but at least she is undeniably fair.

For those of you that like the stats the way they are, I want to see a pros list as to what it adds to the game world and roleplay.

This is a roleplay game, give me a valid explanation on why I should alter my roleplay based on RNG. When my spindly tressy-tressed aide RNG's AI stats and is for all purposes a superhuman. Or my thickly-muscled, powerfully-built man RNG's below average strength, it breaks the idea of a character. Give me a reason why the current system is better and tell me what it adds to the game that is beneficial to ROLEPLAY.

Quote from: Majikal on December 10, 2015, 02:36:36 AM
For those of you that like the stats the way they are, I want to see a pros list as to what it adds to the game world and roleplay.

This is a roleplay game, give me a valid explanation on why I should alter my roleplay based on RNG. When my spindly tressy-tressed aide RNG's AI stats and is for all purposes a superhuman. Or my thickly-muscled, powerfully-built man RNG's below average strength, it breaks the idea of a character. Give me a reason why the current system is better and tell me what it adds to the game that is beneficial to ROLEPLAY.

Is it even possible to RNG a ba strength roll on a on a prioritised stat in 1st, 2nd or 3rd? Like wtf are people making big musclemans then putting str last or whatever and whining about. Being thickly muscled and all that shit doesn't make you necessarily strong either. Not sure why a spindly tressy-tressed can't be AI in stats.

I think you're confusing roleplay with 'roleplay I wanna do because fuck yeah I'm awesome', which I mean is fine for tabletop or whatever, but I mean come on, people really exaggerate this stuff for MUDs. If we go point buy, most people will play the exact same builds, either to min/max, bullshit OOC made up shit max, or stereotype their PC. At least when it's random, doing any of those things isn't reliable in making you automatically Teh Best. If you don't roll it, you work harder or rely on luck more. Or kill the better people. Jealousy rocks in this environment. MCB and all that

Why should we have to rely on a RNG for determining whether we need to work hard at a PC or be lucky, when we're trying to play a game for our own enjoyment and self-amusement?

 

Quote", most people will play the exact same builds,"

Would most people? Some would. Some would continue to chose a random roll (how many still do this) or prioritize.
There just seems a fair number of our players that do want this feature.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on December 10, 2015, 03:02:58 AM
Why should we have to rely on a RNG for determining whether we need to work hard at a PC or be lucky, when we're trying to play a game for our own enjoyment and self-amusement?

like I haven't have all that many PCs but it's pretty hard imo to end up with stats that ruin enjoyment and I play some shit stats and I like lots of stats and stuff

I've made a poll to see what most people are like.  :D

Quote from: Case on December 10, 2015, 02:47:01 AM

Quote from: Majikal on December 10, 2015, 02:36:36 AM
For those of you that like the stats the way they are, I want to see a pros list as to what it adds to the game world and roleplay.

This is a roleplay game, give me a valid explanation on why I should alter my roleplay based on RNG. When my spindly tressy-tressed aide RNG's AI stats and is for all purposes a superhuman. Or my thickly-muscled, powerfully-built man RNG's below average strength, it breaks the idea of a character. Give me a reason why the current system is better and tell me what it adds to the game that is beneficial to ROLEPLAY.

Is it even possible to RNG a ba strength roll on a on a prioritised stat in 1st, 2nd or 3rd? Like wtf are people making big musclemans then putting str last or whatever and whining about. Being thickly muscled and all that shit doesn't make you necessarily strong either. Not sure why a spindly tressy-tressed can't be AI in stats.

I think you're confusing roleplay with 'roleplay I wanna do because fuck yeah I'm awesome', which I mean is fine for tabletop or whatever, but I mean come on, people really exaggerate this stuff for MUDs. If we go point buy, most people will play the exact same builds, either to min/max, bullshit OOC made up shit max, or stereotype their PC. At least when it's random, doing any of those things isn't reliable in making you automatically Teh Best. If you don't roll it, you work harder or rely on luck more. Or kill the better people. Jealousy rocks in this environment. MCB and all that

Didn't really give any reason why RNG is better.....

As to you talking about stat prio eliminating stat shittiness, it definitely helped... but..

On a stat prio of strength agility endurance wisdom with an adult pc. Not old. Not kid. A COMBAT class that gets bonuses to their dice throws on TWO of these four stats btw.
I got ba, ba, aa, ba
I rerolled into
aa, a, ba, p

Shit happens. That's the thing about RNG. Another drop in the bucket is this pc started with boosted skills. This pc also got their ass whooped by a fresh out of the box MERCHANT agressor, literally noob geared MERCHANT straight out of char gen.

Could I have an accident with a Mekillot or crim-code and reroll a pc with better stats? Yes. Would it save me hours of 'work harder or rely on luck more'. Yes. The silt sea and sinkhole are plagued with bodies of people that hate the fuck out of RNG. I assure you.

With a pt buy system people wouldn't always go with the same builds, they wouldn't suicide NEARLY as much, I assure you. And players would have a pc that's at least built to the image they wanted. It might make spice more appealing to. Builds and tastes of players very greatly, not every warrior would prio strength and not every ranger and assasin would prio agility. Do you want to dump all your rangers stat pts into agi for that godly archery? Maybe. But it's going to cost you melee potential and that low wis might make progression a bitch and your scan fuckall worthless. Maybe I want a tough cavalryman that I want to see be a kickass soldier. Strength and Endurace is going to be my goto, not agility so much. It gives you the leniancy to design a pc in a way that you invision it.

Quote from: Majikal on December 10, 2015, 02:36:36 AM
For those of you that like the stats the way they are, I want to see a pros list as to what it adds to the game world and roleplay.

Two points:

1)  Being at the mercy of RNG forces mediocrity and failure into a character concept.  Having some downward pressure to keep players from all playing bad asses is a positive force for the game.  If you get terrible stats, you can throw up your hands and call the character unplayable if you must, or run with it and play a character with some actual weaknesses or flaws.  At the same time, it elevates some characters unexpectedly.  That's cool too.   Consider Gregor Cleagane (The Mountain) from game of thrones.  What kind of character would he have been if he rolled a 12 strength, instead of an 18?  What kind of character would Sandor Cleagane have become if HE rolled the 18 instead of his brother?  Randomness can creates some cool stories too.  

2)  It creates a realistic amount of scarcity around physical superiority.  While you could argue that doesn't necessarily enhance an individual role, it does enhance the game environment by creating potentially conflict generating inequalities.  I personally want having exceptional strength to be...exceptional.  Or having AI agility be something that's actually rare and noteworthy...just as much as having poor agility is rare and noteworthy in a negative sense.

If there's a character concept you have that for some reason requires certain stats to be playable, you could always special app it.

As for your skill boosted, shitty rolls example...  Personally, I'd have taken it in stride.  I'd have played the veteran with plenty of experience, but injuries or bad-luck in the genetic lottery that has damned them to a life of mediocrity as a warrior despite their experience.  Doesn't mean they have to be mediocre in everything else...  Maybe they're a great leader.  Or they're an expert tactician...  Or maybe they're really bitter about it, and decide they're going to try and find magickal means to improve their lot in life, because they're sick of being beaten up by snot-nosed farmers all the time.  But then again, maybe I'm just reaching for a way to take a mundane warrior to magick-is-awesome-Land as that's my faction.

Or maybe this belongs here instead:

Quote from: Marauder Moe on December 10, 2015, 05:30:48 AM
I like that some characters are just better.  They won the genetic lottery.  They have greater potential.  All the other chumps have to work harder, kill them, or accept living in their shadow.  It's exciting when you play such a character and thematic when you don't.  Equality has never been a theme of this game, after all.

Not a defense of the RNG system and stat descriptors, but just to slightly elaborate on how it works: the game actually throws out what it calls "below average" rolls, or in other words, a roll that would give you base stats all at "below average" or lower before race and guild modifiers are applied. The game is designed to function for people with some average stats. Yes, it's cool to get a great stat roll. But it's not horrible to not get one, either.

The difference between each stat gradation is generally one point. Thus it's not really possible to make stat ranges narrower than they already are without tightening the stat ranges for each race and throwing off the system that already exists to cater people with relatively average stats. Stat-suicides are (apparently) typically done because the prioritized stat wasn't high enough. Although the fact of the matter is that the difference between "good" and "exceptional" is usually a mere three points. Not game-breaking, not role-ruining.

Barring the idea that staff wasted time reviewing an app that the player wasted time writing, just to suicide, stat-suicides are inefficient in a bigger way: your next role is as likely to be as undesirable to you as the last one. The game has an acceptable natural baseline for stats - average - and considers the average stat to be functional. Most equipment is usable by a human with average strength. You can still get a good amount of derived stats with average endurance. Learning isn't particularly hindered with average wisdom. You aren't that slow with average agility. The code and item building standards account for this.

Quote from: nauta on December 09, 2015, 06:11:48 PM

Quote from: Jave on December 09, 2015, 04:58:21 PM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 09, 2015, 04:43:15 PM
Polls are fucking weird. It's pretty much a guarantee on the GDB that many people will disagree with your suggested change if it alters something already there, instead of just adds something new. People also like to play devils advocate irregardless of their personal opinions.  

It may also be more of a "silent majority" at play. In a game of 100+ people, 4-5 advocating for something on the GDB may seem like there is a lot of player desire for the change. Then you make a pole and the other 95+ vote  :-\

Total unashamed unrelated to OP comment here, but this jumped a thought in my head: Arm sort of has different parties.

Conservatives.  Things are fine as they are.  Do not change things.

Progressives.  More changes!

MUSHers.  No new code, less code!  Do things via emote and the virtual world and imagination.

MUDers.  More code.  It's a game, dammit.

Wizturbo's Faction. Magick is awesome.  (I'm with you Wizturbo.)

And just like with regular politics, it's all some mash in the middle

You may resume your thread.  I had more to say about elections and a senate and a union of players and a union of staff,  but then I got bored.

There's also moderates
In favor of code changes to improve existing systems or provide MUSHers with more tools to roleplay the virtual world. Adverse to change just for the sake of change or to "placate" any one group listed above at the potential expense of any other one group listed above. Also thinks magick is awesome but continues to encourage its mysteriousness and spookiness. Includes Jobbers who enjoy the grind and don't want to leave them out.

Played a human ranger in the Byn once. At over 45 days played I still got my ass beat in sparring by a half-elf ranger with 5 days played. No special extended backgrounds. No other factors on the table. The only factor....

I had average human agility.

They had exceptional half-elf agility.

This apparently made them better in melee than me.....and not by a small margin. I don't mean they edged me out a little now and then. I got rofl-stomped frequently by them. It wasn't even a contest.

The stat difference basically gave them 45+ days of playtime and training behind the keyboard they never had to actually do.

I hate to be the person who says "stats don't matter", but in reality, this isn't a post about how stats matter. It's a post about how they don't matter.

Despite this huge shit-stat I had that made me get my ass beat by five day characters of the same guild...I still went on to be extremely successful with that PC.

There is no denying it made melee combat with that PC a bitch and nothing I could ever depend on in any way....but it didn't ruin the PC for me. I just sort of stopped training melee all together. I realized in terms of combat I wasn't going to get anywhere at 100 days played I hadn't gotten at 45 days played. What was I going to do? Finally be able to beat that breed with 10% of the same playtime? What a huge waste of effort.

I found it better to not focus on stats or on combat at all because my roll was shit. I focused on other things, and it ended up working out great.

It was playing an average agility human ranger that made me realize you can do great things with a PC even if they are a stat-cripple, and he was.

Are people seriously still talking about low stats being unplayable? And other are talking about how their low stat character was awesome? Like seriously?

I'm totally butthurt guys. You've hurt my butt.

Quote from: Majikal on December 10, 2015, 02:36:36 AM
For those of you that like the stats the way they are, I want to see a pros list as to what it adds to the game world and roleplay.

As far as adding to the game world and roleplay, I think RNG and points-buy are pretty close to equal. I've played games with both, but I think Arm gets the best of both worlds with the guided RNG method using stat prioritization. Why do I like the RNG aspect of character creation?

• Greater variety among characters, no min-maxed builds, and built-in (statistical) character flaws
• Every character isn't equal sum (the world has genetic freaks)

For me, the above two points mean that the world feels more organic and less planned. I like that.

In the current system, you might get the main stat you were planning for, but maybe your dump stat ends up unusually bad. Well, enjoy your unexpected character flaw! I got a pretty bad wisdom like that one time, and it wasn't the end of the world. People commented on how slowly she was learning compared to others in her cohort. Another time I got an exceptional and an extremely good and then proceeded to kick ass across the Known, raising eyebrows as I went. I got lucky and had an experience that just doesn't happen in a points-buy system. If you're willing to roll (ha) with what the RNG gives you, you might have some unexpected fun.

Also in the current system, you have to always consider that there is a genetic freak out there that is stronger and faster than you. In a points-buy system, you can make some pretty good guesses at what the competition is like. I like having that uncertainty.

Quote from: Majikal on December 10, 2015, 02:36:36 AM
This is a roleplay game, give me a valid explanation on why I should alter my roleplay based on RNG. When my spindly tressy-tressed aide RNG's AI stats and is for all purposes a superhuman. Or my thickly-muscled, powerfully-built man RNG's below average strength, it breaks the idea of a character. Give me a reason why the current system is better and tell me what it adds to the game that is beneficial to ROLEPLAY.

I've already addressed the roleplay issue, and now I'm going to call you out on this hyperbole.  :)

I have never rolled an AI stat that wasn't prioritized first (I have barely ever gotten them at all!), so if I had an AI on my tressy-tress it would be wisdom or agility, which would be okay.

I have also never rolled a below average strength on a strength prioritized character. I think it's reasonable to expect to get very or extremely good. So all I can say is that if you're making a strength-centric character, make sure to prioritize strength first and pick an age in their race's prime.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 10, 2015, 10:29:48 AM
Are people seriously still talking about low stats being unplayable? And other are talking about how their low stat character was awesome? Like seriously?

I'm totally butthurt guys. You've hurt my butt.

You can't mention stats with out this discussion.

If you're looking on the bright side.   Nergal provided some wonderful insights.

I don't think you can get away from the 'sucky stats are a bummer' conversation.  The meta game and the desire for character achievement skews the averages.  Average strength -should- be the norm.  But stat suicide/storage on top of how people try to build, tends to skew that.  I think most people settle on good or at lest in shoot for Very Good. Which strangely enough, perhaps makes it the 'average' for most combat characters.

Perhaps a moderator could split off the conversation but I'm not entirely sure anyone is up for the 'stat talk' holy wars.

I think I've only experience Rogue's mention phenomenon once or twice and I chalk it up to skill and RNG then I Thought about how a human strength range might exceed a dwarf's or half-giants.    I mostly experienced it in agility when comparing Human/half-elf peers.  An example would be a human ranger I had who seem to out class a half-elf ranger in the sparring the circle.  But that ranger had awesome stats on the STR/AGI side so I wonder if my Agility exceeded the half-elf. Just by virtue I happen to have comparable attacks per round (I think agility effects) on top of greater strength.  But I guess that isn't too far of a stretch between half-elf/human.  With out hard numbers, to see where a human's range could exceed a racial average is guess work, but it be interesting to see where each one overlays for once or not.  Depends stats/skills can really both be a role play killer (being concerned with coded power) or enabler (code allows PCs to interact with the environment in a consistent manner).

Quote from: hopeandsorrow on December 10, 2015, 11:52:39 AM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 10, 2015, 10:29:48 AM
Are people seriously still talking about low stats being unplayable? And other are talking about how their low stat character was awesome? Like seriously?

I'm totally butthurt guys. You've hurt my butt.

You can't mention stats with out this discussion.

If you're looking on the bright side.   Nergal provided some wonderful insights.

I don't think you can get away from the 'sucky stats are a bummer' conversation.  The meta game and the desire for character achievement skews the averages.  Average strength -should- be the norm.  But stat suicide/storage on top of how people try to build, tends to skew that.  I think most people settle on good or at lest in shoot for Very Good. Which strangely enough, perhaps makes it the 'average' for most combat characters.

Perhaps a moderator could split off the conversation but I'm not entirely sure anyone is up for the 'stat talk' holy wars.

Someone made a new thread that's more general about the stat system and making it better. The discussion would fit perfectly there. http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50236.0.html (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50236.0.html)

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 10, 2015, 10:29:48 AM
Are people seriously still talking about low stats being unplayable? And other are talking about how their low stat character was awesome? Like seriously?

I'm totally butthurt guys. You've hurt my butt.

As far as I know, stats don't factor much into mudsex, so I fail to see the relevance.

Quote from: Desertman on December 10, 2015, 10:22:19 AM
Played a human ranger in the Byn once. At over 45 days played I still got my ass beat in sparring by a half-elf ranger with 5 days played. No special extended backgrounds. No other factors on the table. The only factor....

I had average human agility.

They had exceptional half-elf agility.

This apparently made them better in melee than me.....and not by a small margin. I don't mean they edged me out a little now and then. I got rofl-stomped frequently by them. It wasn't even a contest.

The stat difference basically gave them 45+ days of playtime and training behind the keyboard they never had to actually do.

Given that I've run tests with NPCs to compare the stat vs skill dynamic and found it to be negligible within the parameters of "normal" stat ranges ... and given that half-elf and human stats are no more different in range in Armageddon that you'd find in D&D (that is to say within a point or two of one another) ... I'm pretty skeptical of the claim that agility was the only factor behind your character getting whomped on in a sparring match(es).

Hard to say since I have no idea what the skill levels were between you and them, or the stat values for that matter, at the time this sparring was going on, and no way to go back and look. -- But for what it's worth, in the tests I ran where a newbie human with AI agility (which is higher than half-elf exceptional agility ... and this human also had AI everything else) went up against a journeyman level human with average agility (and average everything else for that matter) ... ... the average but more skilled guy beat the snot out of the AI newbie repeatedly, and consistently.

Quote from: Jave on December 10, 2015, 03:47:10 PM

Quote from: Desertman on December 10, 2015, 10:22:19 AM
Played a human ranger in the Byn once. At over 45 days played I still got my ass beat in sparring by a half-elf ranger with 5 days played. No special extended backgrounds. No other factors on the table. The only factor....

I had average human agility.

They had exceptional half-elf agility.

This apparently made them better in melee than me.....and not by a small margin. I don't mean they edged me out a little now and then. I got rofl-stomped frequently by them. It wasn't even a contest.

The stat difference basically gave them 45+ days of playtime and training behind the keyboard they never had to actually do.

Given that I've run tests with NPCs to compare the stat vs skill dynamic and found it to be negligible within the parameters of "normal" stat ranges ... and given that half-elf and human stats are no more different in range in Armageddon that you'd find in D&D (that is to say within a point or two of one another) ... I'm pretty skeptical of the claim that agility was the only factor behind your character getting whomped on in a sparring match(es).

Hard to say since I have no idea what the skill levels were between you and them, or the stat values for that matter, at the time this sparring was going on, and no way to go back and look. -- But for what it's worth, in the tests I ran where a newbie human with AI agility (which is higher than half-elf exceptional agility ... and this human also had AI everything else) went up against a journeyman level human with average agility (and average everything else for that matter) ... ... the average but more skilled guy beat the snot out of the AI newbie repeatedly, and consistently.

Guess I just got dicked then. *shrug* My wife was the one stomping my ass and I still get to hear about it to this day.

(Granted, she can put more into a five day PC than MOST players can put into a 20 day PC. So I will give sway in that regard.)

It still struck me as....disappointing. I hadn't exactly led a passive life.

Yeah, I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm just saying I think that there were other variables in the mix beyond the difference in agility. -- Because I've tested that hypothesis in a controlled setting where stats vs skills was the sole difference between two otherwise carbon copies of the same NPC and in that controlled setting, stats were not a strong enough variable to save the npc from an ass whooping at the hands of the more skilled, but average stat one, and did not become so until I raised the stats way above what it's possible for the RGN to roll during chargen.

I'm sure the agility helped her win, but I bet it was a melting pot of additional variables that went into that as well.

Yar I hear you.

The code actually reflected I was more "skilled". I just didn't attack nearly as often.

I probably landed 80% - 90% of my attacks.

They probably landed 20% of their attacks.

The difference I saw was that they were pushing out six or seven attacks for every one of mine. I was having to try and dodge six or seven attacks for every one attack I got to throw.

In the end it resulted in me being much more skilled, which made sense, but me only presenting that "skilled shot" after dodging five hits and taking two hits every round, more or less.

It was death of a thousand nicks basically.

(It could have been any number of things in hindsight I suppose. I just assumed it was agility based since the number of attacks going out compared to mine seemed to be the great equalizer. If we had thrown one for one, I would have won every time easily.)

.... ah, wrist razors. The great equalizer.

On the bright side ... hey you were a 45 day old PC getting skill gains off a newb.  8)

That's always been my guilty pleasure whenever my characters get their ass kicked in a sparring ring.

Them: Hahah I beat your ass!!
Me: Hahah I skilled up and you didn't!

Jave, I think I remember you did this on NPCs -- but I wonder, do NPCs get affected by encumbrance the same way PCs do?

I'm pretty sure they do with the possible exception of shop keeper NPCs that end up having massive amounts of stuff in their inventory that is supposed to be on the walls.

Be we have a different bit of code that handles shop keepers so I'm not sure how it may or may not fiddle with their actual encumbrance from carrying 17 wardrobes.

Would you mind doing a similar test? Only have both PC's Journeyman at everything, and only change the stats of the characters? That seems like a much better indicator of how much stats effect things.

Then compare "Above average" vs "Very Good".

If the difference between 2 stat levels is something like 49/51 or even 45/55 that wouldn't be a big deal. But if it's more like 60/40 it would show just how big a difference there is between the stats.

It seems pretty straight forward to me that all else being 100% equal, better stats will give an advantage. -- You want me to test that to try and tease out exactly how much of an advantage?

I could I suppose. At the time though that wasn't what I was trying to learn. I already knew that all else being equal slightly higher stats = slight advantage. Seemed self evident. -- I was exploring the claim that stats  matter so much that they trump skills. They do not within the parameters of racial norms.

A half giant fighting a human however has strength so astronomically higher than a human is capable of having that ... well ... there is a reason they aren't allowed to spar you in military clans  :P

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 10, 2015, 07:04:23 PM
Would you mind doing a similar test? Only have both PC's Journeyman at everything, and only change the stats of the characters? That seems like a much better indicator of how much stats effect things.

Then compare "Above average" vs "Very Good".

If the difference between 2 stat levels is something like 49/51 or even 45/55 that wouldn't be a big deal. But if it's more like 60/40 it would show just how big a difference there is between the stats.

Oooo, I smell scheduled arena events!

Quote from: Jave on December 10, 2015, 07:29:01 PM
It seems pretty straight forward to me that all else being 100% equal, better stats will give an advantage. -- You want me to test that to try and tease out exactly how much of an advantage?

I could I suppose. At the time though that wasn't what I was trying to learn. I already knew that all else being equal slightly higher stats = slight advantage. Seemed self evident. -- I was exploring the claim that stats  matter so much that they trump skills. They do not within the parameters of racial norms.

I know I'm just greedy and love info. I know your previous test was for something else but I'm sorta trying to bring it back around to the OP. I'm wondering if slight bumps to stats give BIG advantages. Which would support my assertion that the range of stats are too broad.

You really don't have to do anything though. Likely everyone's position on the matter would be the same. I just want to know how right or wrong I am about this, as I don't have the tools to properly check.

Just so you know this will be a long post. Tl;dr are at the bottom.
When I see a person complain of shit stats I instantly think "Well what the fuck did you do wrong"
Lets use an example. Lets say that human stats simply go from 1 - 10 with 5 as the average.
Now lets say you roll above average across the board. Lets say you got 7 in everything.
Now how about if you rolled a 13 year old. Bam you lose like 3 points in each except agi. (Not the exact numbers probably but idk its an example)
Now you have 4 str 4 emd 4 wis and 10 agi when you should hve 11 agi but stat caps.
Not saying it does since I dont know for sure but what if your main guild gives even further change. Lets say you roll a merch. Would make sense for them to be lo str and high wis. So you now have like 3 str 4 end 5 wis and 10 agi.


Tl;dr stats suck, love em when you get good rolls hate em when you get low rolls. But perhaps you are partiallu responsible for your elf not being able to hold a sword even in both hands.

Edit forgot to mention since elves str is even lower your shit str merch now has probably 1 str and like 2 end and perhaps 6 wis and 12 agi but caps man

I think I hold you guys to way too high an expectation.

Hold who to what?

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 10, 2015, 08:16:03 PM
I think I hold you guys to way too high an expectation.

I think you're unhappy people don't want what you want

Quote from: Case on December 10, 2015, 08:35:56 PM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 10, 2015, 08:16:03 PM
I think I hold you guys to way too high an expectation.

I think you're unhappy people don't want what you want

I can't disagree with that. It's also ironic to make an off-topic post about being annoyed that people are off topic. I go off-topic all the time, so it's also a little hypocritical. So I apologize.

Unhappy, ironic, and hypocritical. That's 3 Strikes, so I'm out of here.  ;)

edit* I  just used irony wrong. I think I may have just doubled down on the hypocrisy instead.

That in and of itself is irony isnt it?