>
>>Secondly, most stats scale exponentially...
>
>I believe stats scale non-linearly in CF. In some cases
>you could even make the case they scale exponentially,
>however in practice I certainly believe that the difference
>is not actually that large. Specifically in the case of 23
>vs. 24str, it isn't likely the (for instance) damage output
>will look anything like exponentially better, or that the
>exponent is so close to 1 that it looks functionally linear.

I suppose there's a slight distinction there. I don't go into the
code-side, but noticeably beyond linearly was my impression in the
23+ range of stats. 19 to 22-23 is a lot more linear was my
understanding. On that same note, I do feel like the dex-warrior
gains far more out of the non-linear than the str-warrior does,
but that's just me.

>In short, I think you'd be better served by looking at just
>how much an effect 1 str would have in practice. Do you
>parry
>3% better? Do you do 1% more damage? There are a ton of
>small affects, I'm sure, but if the overall change in any
>given effect is less than 10%, it probably isn't overly
>noticeable for a person who takes the edge.

Couldn't tell you for sure. But given orcs are str-focused,
mamlauks double down on that, higher wield-weight, higher damage
with heavier weapons, that's definitely compounding. I generally
assume str makes orcs happy, but it's as much anecdotal as anything.

>I know, in my personal anecdotal evidence with shigru that
>I probably wouldn't take that edge again because without
>knowing a lot more about the effects, it feels like the
>difference is a few hp (at best).

Honestly, you're ahead of me on this mark. I love my Skruggas,
but I've never managed to actually take Agile Coward. I'd probably
take the +con one given the chance, but it's so late in the game
before you can take it, dunno how useful it is. I'm super curious
how much fast healing, toughness, and grit improve w/ 24 con vs 25
now.

>Its really hard, on the player end, to quantify and make
>informed decisions when so much of these things, like edge
>point cost vs. overall edge points you can reasonable earn
>are hidden.

Admittedly, I have a better insight into exact cost these days,
but the result is little different than when I was a player.
Although myself, I just chalked those edges up to being unicorns.

>It is entirely possible this player would be just as unhappy
>with it if he knew exactly how much Lug costs, and how many
>edge points he could earn (via edge point specifics), but I
>think it is more likely they would approach the complaint
>differently (don't you think this costs too much?) vs WTF
>why can't I take this edge if it wasn't a surprise due to
>lack of information.

I would disagree a little, given the WTF approach when the player
felt he "should" have had this edge, but hasn't even scratched the
surface of many ways to get edges. I would have sworn this edge
was known to be absurdly expensive, but maybe that's just from a
super-long-ago forum post that he wouldn't have likely referenced.
There has been some discussion that while this edge will almost
certainly remain very expensive, the possibility at least exists
that it may be re-evaluated, particularly given orcish struggles
in the cabal wars discussion.