Weapon diversification

[The Sociologist]

How come every time they add something to the game that involves skills, I feel like leaving the game all over again.

We all knew that strength was the one remaining component difficult to analyse and in truth completely dominating the combat system (ie dragging, dragging and yet more dragging). Now suddenly it is made visible out of the blue, but made visible to everybody.

I have said time and time again that attributes need to be equalized. If you are going to have strength, then also have agility, dexterity and suchlike. And what a character loses in strength they gain in the other two, and so forth. Every single MUD out there does something like this. Why? Because it works.

It's not like you guys are inventing the wheel for the first time. There has been such balancing of attributes since before PCs--indeed since the old boardgames before computer MUDs even existed. Unless you have such balancing, the result is psychotic or suicidal characters, dissatisfied players and a declining player base. Simple as that.

I welcome the fact that different weapon classes will have different reliance on strength, but that does not go far enough. You need to balance the attributes first. And making strength alone "public" in this way before doing so is just asking for yet more heartbreak and yet more people leaving the game.

[Phalynx]

Aaaah You beat Surly to it!

[CrashBlizz]

Is there a limit on strength? Can you reach the maximum and not be able to get any stronger?

Does the top 'rank' describe the all strength above a certain number even if its double or triple that number?

or does it describe anything past that number up to a certain point and then you just stay there? You reach your full potential.

[Nakranoth]

I have said time and time again that attributes need to be equalized. If you are going to have strength, then also have agility, dexterity and suchlike. And what a character loses in strength they gain in the other two, and so forth. Every single MUD out there does something like this. Why? Because it works.

You're forgetiing something, Cantr isn't about "leveling up" your character from it's initial worthless state. Just because a person is weak, does not make them neccisarily any faster, more dextrous, or anything of the sort. Every other MUD out there has "balanced stats" because they're attempting to support diffrent but equal Fighting classes and they want to force not just specialization but single dimential character evolution. Cantr, on the other hand, isn't about becoming the best "mage" or "fighter" class out there, but the best balance of whatever mixture is neccisary for your character to thrive in conjunction with those around you, and that's the reason I fell in love with it.

[Arlequin]

'Arr! Thou art going to face thy death now! Taste my rapier's blade!'

Err... *cough* sorry. As commented above, the usual RPG str vs dex vs int balance can lead to confusion. They often give archery a heavy dexterity factor when, actually, you need quite some strength to use many of the old bows. Also, I bet a wooden heavy crossbow would still weight quite a bit.

About guns... they come after cannons. And cannons after... fireworks? And fireworks after some sort of chemical manufacturing. So I would look first for chemistry tools and chemical resources, like sulfur. They will be needed too if someday there are plagues in Cantr.

[El_Skwidd]

I would just like to reiterate my standpoint that I will leave Cantr forever if guns are added.

Pet peeve of mine.

[Nakranoth]

I would just like to reiterate my standpoint that I will leave Cantr forever if guns are added.

Pet peeve of mine.

Don't worry, guns couldn't possibly come until after high grade polymers, err... plastic... which couldn't possibly exist until after vehicle fuels... Guns, if the peope upstairs ever decide are a good thing, couldn't come around for at least another couple of RL years... but I don't expect to really see them in the conventional sense ever.

[DELGRAD]

Guns. Yes RL years. At least 100 RL years.

I would rather face a chunk of lead anyday over a crossbow bolt.

Crossbows are projectile weapons and have triggers. Guns would you say not? Kinda.

[Nosajimiki]

I say screw adding new stats, just tone down the effect of stregth and skill in combat. I've had caries that can do anywhere from 3 to 14 points of dammage with a bagh-nock/club/primative bow and the difference only gets commpounded as you go to better weapons. IMO that's way to massive of a dammage range, especially since I know I've never had a strong expert fighter/hunter meaning you can feasably do more than 14 on the top range. I also know that an exceptionally strong person can drag someone that could take 3 weaker ones. I like that str is visable b/c it makes logical since that it should be, but the equations need balencing desperately. I think if a strong expert could only do max ~30% more dammage than a weak awkward and a strong person could only drag 30% more than a weak one, you's see a lot fewer suicidal newspawns. All the other skills don't have nearly as big of a difference between being good and bad, so combat skills should be the same.

(side note: I've actually have an expert hunter that does less dammage with a claymore than a skillful one with a pickaxe... I don't think I need to ellaborate.)

[tiddy ogg]

I know I'm generally of the "any change is bad" school, but it does make sense to have this, especially as strength can be improved.
The only downside I see is that more newspawns will get abandoned by their players, desppite the 40 day rule when it's found that they are much weaker than normal.
(PS The one char I've checked of mine, that I thought a total wimp rates as average.)

[Nixit]

I kinda dig this.

[SekoETC]

Everyone who whines about this can go to hell. The weapon change was a BRILLIANT idea and it's gonna make things much more realistic. For showing strength, stronger than average means somewhat muscular and weaker than average means skinny or pudgy, easy to understand. It's perfectly understandable why these things are visible.

[Antichrist_Online]

The only problem I see is instead of people with low skill/strength thinking Oh, I'll get a weapon that doesn't need much, so I'm almost as useful, they'll think, oh I'm useless, lets just die. Not everyone will do this, and once people realise for example a heavy instrument is better for unskilled strong characters, wheras a dagger might be better for weak skilled ones, and a blunt light weapon for weak unskilled and bows for the strong skilled, etc (These are just random examples of a sorta logical disribution.) People will stop cutting characters and variaity will return.

[Phalynx]

People killed off characters if their skill set was not to their liking and thus the newspawn slots were blocked for those that did so. THe same is true for strength, if people want to risk their slots like that its their lookout.

This adds a positive dimension, even if it doesn't particulalry suit my current characters, so I am pleased...

[Oasis]

I think I'll like the weapon change, but I do not agree that someone's strength should be visible to all.

I have to agree with BC and Sociology on this one. I'm all for a character knowing their own strength, but the minute it's shown for all to see, they are judged differently than they were before. My large burly warrior is now seen as very weak........this will do nothing for his confidence, nor can he roleplay that he is strong, even if he isn't. I also think that characters shown to be weak will become easy targets.

I am not one for building up stats, but now that everyone can see this, it's the first thing I think of......how can I quickly build up his strength so people don't see him as weak. Sure, he may be quick, agile, dextrous, but nobody sees this.......oh, because it isn't even a component of the game. I agree there has to be more than weak or strong.