Character Stats

[walsh_cm]

As a veteran of the original Romance of the Three Kingdoms games I've always felt the 0-100 range for traits and stats were the most aesthetically pleasing.

Something about 97 War just has a great look to it while 25 looks random and incomplete.

Am I the only one who has the RTK stats of old burned into my consciousness?

 

[Dragatus]

You're probably not the only one, but you are likely still a minority. I imagine the majority doesn't care much what the stat range is. As for me, I like relatively low numbers. A 1-10 or 1-20 range. Essentially, for me the range of stats needs to be low enough that +1 makes a meaningful difference. With a 0-100 range you don't get that.

 

[Limbojack]

I actually think the stat range of CK2 is a bit too extreme, and would like CK3 to follow in the steps of I:R. No need to inflate the stats IMO. A 37 diplomacy, 98 martial, 9 intrigue, 67 learning and 22 learning ruler just feels.. off?

 

[Concrete]

I think smaller stats feel better for progression. Plus 1 to a stat feels good when you only have single digits to start with, and the second of multiple of ten can feel just as crazy as 100/100, it also feels less purely maths, like say a level 20 martial stat doesn't quite feel twice as good as 10, which I think is important to avoid considering that we are dealing with a numeric representation of a vague mental capacity.

I think larger values are better when the system calls for different characters to directly roll their numbers against others, for more tightly controlled and predictable results; when 97 offence man can clash with 78 defence man and the simple difference in values has a clear numeric outcome.

 

[Andrzej I]

I actually think the stat range of CK2 is a bit too extreme, and would like CK3 to follow in the steps of I:R. No need to inflate the stats IMO. A 37 diplomacy, 98 martial, 9 intrigue, 67 learning and 22 learning ruler just feels.. off?

Very much agreed here. It would be nice for the stats to be given some statistical meaning, as CK2 tried to do (with descriptors such as 7-10 being competent, or what not.), but as stat inflation kicked in with each passing patch and DLC, it no longer felt right.

 

[Weyird]

Maybe being a D&D player affect my opinion, but I like a nice range of between 8 and 18 for normal characters. The problem with having 0-100 means that it shows you exactly the absolute maximum perfect score. I prefer knowing that 'above 20 is really high', but not knowing what the absolute maximum could be.

Actually, I'd be pretty pleased if it was just divided into Terrible, Poor, Competent, Good, and Excellent. But I'm not committed to that idea.

 

[Dayvit78]

What's more important to me is that stats follow a normal distribution. Whatever the middle number is is what most of the characters should be grouped around. There should not be an equal number of each number. Whatever the max number is should only be a very small % of people.

 

[Ezumiyr]

The problem with a 1-100 range is that we are dealing with humans here, so I doubt a 1 point difference really means anything.
With a smaller range, each point has more meaning. I'm not convinced that we really need more granularity than 1-20 honestly. Just like most notation systems don't use a 1-100 range (and there are even some that do it in a completely unnecessary way, see IQ for example).
In my experience in CK2, NPC stats have this kind of meaning:
1-4 is very bad, 4-6 is mediocre, 7-11 is average, 12-15 is alright, 16-22 is good and above that we have NPC with very good basic stats.

I don't feel the need for more detailed numbers.

 

[Denkt]

I think the Point is psychological. If you have a range of 0-100, one Point wont feel as a big deal but the smaller CK3 range, even one Point may feel quite impactful. For game mechanics it hardly matter but for humans it may feel like it matters.

 

[Thorv]

a level 20 martial stat doesn't quite feel twice as good as 10

What do you mean? Do you mean that 100 feels twice as good as 50 but 20 doesn't feel twice as good as 10?