Code features that cause twinking, and possible solutions

The issue is more in the failure to improve system. IRL people can create an instrument, throw a football, write a functioning program, and they can do this successfully and still feel they failed or that they could improve and then they do improve in some cases. It is the ability to improve without a failure that would fix ARMs twink/metagame requirement to get decent combat powers.

EDIT - The details of such a system would require me to have a deeper understanding of the actual system in the back end and how much raise it gave for each failure and what the statistics were for a failure after a certain marker point in growth yada yada yada.

I think the parry/block thing would help and so would adding a couple more monsters in BOTH the north and south that were higher agi.

I feel like what they've done is actually make players plateau sooner, so wildlife isn't that much of a threat except for certain things that should be a threat. I'm not sure why or where they're going with this, but it definitely seems to be in play right now.

Excuse me? Have you ever heard of the Byn?

One of the worst things about Arm's code is the stat system. It's so awful, I'm not joking when I say it ranks in the top three of worst features I have ever seen in any game at all. The degree of randomness is ridiculous and strongly encourages repeat suicides. It also carries the risk of your sponsored/spec-app role being underpowered because of sheer bad luck, and generally just makes each character's potential a total crapshoot for no reason whatsoever.

There's a reason no serious game - and certainly no competitive game, which Armageddon ultimately is - has a system where a character's inherent prowess can vary by something like 50% depending on an arbitrary dice roll at creation. This is never overcome by skills, no matter how much people insist it on the GDB, and a poorly statted character is handicapped forever. Such a system belongs at the dawn of character-based gaming, with the older editions of D&D and other such relics of the past.

The worst part of it all is the degree of pointless head-in-ass stubbornness of the staff and GDB sycophants whenever this is brought up. They absolutely refuse to change the stat system, or even acknowledge that any of the problems exist. They'll swear that it's perfect and the best possible stat system to have, and anyone who criticizes it gets discredited as bad roleplayers and twinks while the backpatters spout self-glorifying stories about how their best characters are always the worst statted ones.

I have never heard any valid argument in favor of such a wildly random stat system. They always dredge up the old "people aren't equal in real life, either" nonsense, which is neither pertinent to a game nor a fact that warrants the current stat-rolling design. You don't give characters starting skills that vary randomly between novice and advanced, although that would have been better as such a thing actually *could* be overcome through play whereas a character saddled with bad stats is forever at a severe disadvantage.

yeah or just treat parry and block like small percentage fails so theres still constant improvement at upper lvls, just a lot more gradual ur getting top tier

I just think it's funny when you describe a waif or a really slender person and then you roll AI strength. you end up joining a clan and when everybody wants to spar you to show you how it's done, you completely destroy the first guy because you land three crits in a row and you're trying to pose "The twiggy blonde woman waves her sword around helplessly with her eyes shut tightly." By the time you hit enter he already fled and cracked a piece of his armor. It's kind of hard to play the "I never held a sword before" angle when you two shot people after three days played.

You really should be able to go back and change your desc after you roll, because that shit totally changes your character concept right out of the box.

iv sene dis hapn 2 manee tymez. 2 funny.