Q&A The Statplaying Q&A Thread

You know what, I think I am going to use this thread.

Alright so, I suck with X-Abilities. I just don't even. Considering this, I will put up my in-progress tourney profiles here so as to get suggestions for actual X-Ability effects. (Well, I might take suggestions for the flavor text of Mirani's X I suppose...)

Mirani Flore

Lance Henrikson

Now of course, these profiles aren't really final, so there's bound to be some changes to innates and skills and the like before the Tourney starts... But aside from that, all I really need are X-Abilities and... I just don't even.

Yes, I am a sadistic fuck.

 

I get told really often that I possess an inhuman lack of logic and that I need to "lern2mage".

Both of these really revolve around a term that I don't really get: "Meta".

So what is meta? I don't get it.

 

Yeah, I think-- and I'm not trying to be offensive here-- a concept of meta is where your statplaying prowess falls apart, Gist. Getting a clearer definition of the word will hopefully help your application of it, so I'll try to explain it, though a more experienced statplayer would probably do better.

"Meta" is definitely a term a lot of people don't exactly get, and that's because it's used pretty widely-- it's basically a blanket term for what you make, or how something functions. This is in relevance to making profiles, of course, so one's "meta" is principally what you lay down for the characters, regarding Abilities and anything else that affects statform battles. The key connection to make here is that what you put in your profiles determines how that unit functions in battle. This is an extremely obvious statement once it's spelled out, but it's also one of the most important things about making statform characters to remember. Sometimes "meta" is used simply with the words "good" and "bad", and this directly correlates to the fact above; "Good meta" is when the skills and mechanics you make for a character are viable and useful in an actual statform battle, whereas "bad meta" is, well, the opposite of useful.

Bringing up this point, it's important to make a distinction between "good" and "bad" (I would personally call them "functioning" and "non-functioning" for the sake of specifics) meta, and how to make sure your meta lands on the "good" side. 'Good', or 'functioning', meta, occurs most often when the mechanics you make for your character fit that character's strengths, or however you'll use them in battle. For example, if you start off making a support unit, but the skills you make are more inclined to do damage, chances are, that character won't be a good support. This is why you see terms like "support meta" and "DPT meta"-- no matter how you look at it, these types of units will always have a defined way of how they function best in their role. Making a DPT character whose skills and mechanics focus on dealing damage is the basis of a functioning DPT character. You have to make sure what you make for your character will function well in that character's role. This is pretty much the basis for "meta".

And that's what any statplayer really needs to know about meta, even if it may all seem obvious. When making a profile and thinking of skills or mechanics for your character, you have to ask yourself whether what you're thinking will actually complement the role you want that character to perform.

 

I'm kinda' seeing the current metagame as one which revolves around gaining Act and Move Commands, or creating Free Commands-- a lot of people seem to be out to maximize how much they can do in a single turn nowadays. (This is also supported by the number of Command-preventing Abilities I see cropping up, like Evisca's S-Ability and multiple A-Skills that make a chance to cancel actions)

 

I'd like to request that the difference between Cast Time and Charge be clearly distinguished.

 

And how does the 'Chance of Skill Interruption' factor into the various types of Cast Time behaviours, if at all? This more from a GM's point of view, but also out of interest for other players' sakes.

 

Question: what can be done to make statplaying more accessible? Is it in a good state right now, or has it started to become overly complicated?

 

To answer the question directly: I think the system is in a good place right now, but we can prospectively make it more accessible by increasing the amount of resources beginners have at their disposal.

So I went to some friends on Skype after seeing this question-- friends who know basically nothing about our statplaying system-- and kind of wanted to test how complicated the system might seem at first glance. I explained that statplaying is a grid-based strategic combat system used in conjunction with roleplaying, not unlike DnD, and then showed them the profile template, a complete profile, and a statplay in action. They said they were intimidated by the walls of text and the diversity of Abilities-- showing them Recursion eliminated the text problem, and they went on to say that if someone was interested in statplaying, they'd likely try learning it.

I don't think the system itself intimidates people (unless they're of the opposite demographic we appeal to), and obviously if people really want to learn it they'll learn in the same way we've always taught, but there are definitely things we can do to make the learning process more approachable for those who have an interest but lack, say, the motivation or devotion that our previous way of teaching may have required. I think what we basically need is a readily-accessible explanation of the profile (almost exactly like what is found here, especially with the segmentation of fields) and a non-committal place for people to practice battling-- that is, a PvE arena, so people don't have to go into a whole roleplay to merely try statplaying.

The statplaying system hasn't really become more or less difficult or complicated since at least when I myself started learning it. I would say it only becomes more complicated when you're past the gate and have already learned the basics and could function-- albeit in a simple form-- in a statplay. For this, we resurrect the statistical guide we were working on and refine it so it becomes what it was already becoming; a manual to the ShadowSysytem as a whole.

 

Zeri and Kuori had mentioned this briefly in the ED Skype, but being that we've done balancing on Dual Wield, what of other "Extra Slot" innates? Although not a lot of people focus on building 'tank' characters, I think it's worth examining the early-level power of something like Shieldbearer or the power of having a 'projectile' slot.

Thoughts?

 

@Keileon I don't think that's terribly strong in practicality, so having an R-Ability (rerolls seem more reactive to me, since the trigger would be when one of those chances is initially unsuccessful) which rolls once more for a chance of landing a Critical hit, or Evading an attack whenever the first roll fails would be fine, I think. Adding rerolling for applying Negative Status Conditions might be loading it up a bit much, though I'm not certain.

 

Would it be OP for me to have a character that has an S- that makes one chance in the current battle be guaranteed?

 

Would like to hear some thoughts/perspectives on the current state of ShadowSystem. Given the impending 'crossover' statplay with our neighbouring forum of Eternal Dream, what do you guys think of our system's 'Critical' statistic? Is it a "vital" part of the ZEJ statplaying experience? Is it worth having as a stat at all, or does it make more sense to handle it in the way that Masq does -- i.e. Critical Hit Rate buffs are accrued through items, equips, or A-Skills, but otherwise it is a flat 0%?

 

Critical, and even Evasion, is kind of a nuisance the way it is. Steady, indefinite natural growth is kind of blah. Especially since it gives the player the feel that it'll have a purpose later levels while early game it's fairly useless.

I would like to see it/them being a set total number that can be deviated depending on the character, but remove the natural growth. Perhaps keep some minor increases through job promotion. Something like a set 6% total base for both combined. Then allow it to be distributed based on the character's build, kind of like the other base stats. A character could focus on Crit and put it at 5%, but would have to sacrifice Eva to 1%. Or an even build for 3%/3%. Everything from 6%/0% to 0%/6%. Job promotion could each give an additional 3% to distribute or something like that, idk.

Another idea could be to mix it in with range/move, as those are somewhat, but noticeably less, of another problem. Could group the four and have a character have two "positives" and two "negatives". A level 1 ranged character already has a clear advantage just by being ranged, so why not have them sacrifice Crit/Eva to get an extra move as well? A character without range would just as instantly take the move route, and sacrificing range would allow to improve Crit or Eva bases. Something like your usual ranger build being 3 range, 3 move, 3-4[?]% total Crit/Eva. Classic warrior would be more 1 range, 3 move, 6% total Crit/Eva [Or even sacrifice move down to 2 for 8% or so?]. Mages could see 3 range, 2 move, 6% total Crit/Eva.

Obviously base wouldn't /have/ to be 6%, I could see upwards 8-10% working as long as you put a cap on the height of a starting base stat at about 6% methinks~