Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordDemon]

Everybody attributes go from nothing to Ultra-mighty, Perfectly agile and Superdwarvenly tough.

But why aren't there negative attributes?

Weak, clumsy and feeble would fit the game just as well, along with their worse versions.

Ideally, instead of all dwarf starting a level 0 on all attributes, some could start better or worse off, or trade. So the starting dwarf could be week but agile, or maybe clumsy but tough. Negative attributes would also allow childred to get their attributes at birth, and increase them steadily as they grow, as well as possibly when they do some work or play with certain toys. It might allow wounded recruits to drop to different levels permanently (Urist McLostahand is now Clumsy), or allow disease (and possibly magic) to temporarily change them.

Also, Some creatures could be made to have baseline below that of dwarf (kobolds/goblins) on some stats, but better on another. This would allow comparing them better.

[Silverionmox]

It's all a matter of scaling. What does 0 represent? Is it 0 on an absolute scale, encompassing everything from flies to titans, or is it 0 relative to the species?

I do agree that the descriptive texts should include subpar categories. The same goes for item quality. However: "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Are such deficiencies better modeled in a specific way? For example, the lost hand, or a blinding disease, scars, syndromes they are born with, ..?

[LordDemon]

I'd like a linear strenght scale personally.

I'm pretty sure that strong Titan and Strong Goblin are not the same strenght (on the other hand, it depends on how the strong is implemented: If it is for example 10% bonus to raw strenght, it would be the same in a  way).

But I Think this would work well with children and babies. And any temporary attribute loss from disease, magic or whatever future implementations. And why not the alternative start up values for dwarfs?

[Duke 2.0]

 While it would be annoying, having a wave of rather unintelligent unskilled peasants would add to flavor, making peasants a bit lower on the scale of usefulness than a cheesemaker who is not clumsy.

 I imagine there will be an absolute attribute scale, with the scale for a race based on what the average is set to in the raws. Then we could have cultural differences, such as one dwarven culture valuing strength to the point where all dwarves that come from there have a higher standard for strength. Then normal dwarves would see them as already a few ranks stronger then them.

 I propose the scale shown(Strong, very strong, unbelievably strong, etc) should be based on the average of the race you are controlling.

 So say you have a group of Kobolds you are working with. A weak human comes along. He would be shown as very strong, because that is the comparison to the weaker kobolds.

 Of course, this could lead to confusion that DF does not need more of. there could be a better way of doing this, but there does need to be a way of gauging the general strength of an entity in comparison to another.

[SirHoneyBadger]

I'm absolutely for, and in support of, negative stats. I think that's a great idea.

We already have Size as an indicator of strength, but we could really use something to indicate relative muscle density/additional muscle groups, by species.

Just because you're bigger than an untrained orangutan doesn't mean you're stronger than one, even if you're a weight-lifter, and there should be something to indicate that.

Being able to "train up" your muscles should also continue to be a part of the game.

So maybe three separate stats there? Size, Muscle, and Strength.

Also, Size could be different for two members of the same species, and it would be nice if that were portrayed. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of randomness yet, in some portions of the game that would seem to call for it, has anyone else noticed?

[RedWarrior0]

This is a great idea, and I'm absolutely for the concept, particularly the way Duke suggests:

I propose the scale shown(Strong, very strong, unbelievably strong, etc) should be based on the average of the race you are controlling.

 So say you have a group of Kobolds you are working with. A weak human comes along. He would be shown as very strong, because that is the comparison to the weaker kobolds.

 Of course, this could lead to confusion that DF does not need more of. there could be a better way of doing this, but there does need to be a way of gauging the general strength of an entity in comparison to another.

Also, for said example, despite the human's agility compared to others of his race, he could be portrayed as clumsy for the kobolds.

[Fieari]

You could also use your own race to describe the strength of others.  That human would be "superkoboldly strong" for instance, not superhumanly so.

[Neonivek]

I propose the scale shown(Strong, very strong, unbelievably strong, etc) should be based on the average of the race you are controlling

It is... Heck... Strength even changes what it is called depending on your Race. "Super*Racially* Strong"

[G-Flex]

I propose the scale shown(Strong, very strong, unbelievably strong, etc) should be based on the average of the race you are controlling

It is...

That's not even possible in the current version. Look at your raws; the only thing affecting those is size, and that probably doesn't even affect stats the way you might think, or at least not all of them.

In other words, a "superhumanly strong" human is, by NECESSITY, exactly as strong as a "superelvenly strong" elf.

[Duke 2.0]

I propose the scale shown(Strong, very strong, unbelievably strong, etc) should be based on the average of the race you are controlling

It is...

That's not even possible in the current version. Look at your raws; the only thing affecting those is size, and that probably doesn't even affect stats the way you might think, or at least not all of them.

In other words, a "superhumanly strong" human is, by NECESSITY, exactly as strong as a "superelvenly strong" elf.

I think he means in name only. A human appears as superhumanly strong, elves superelvenly strong, etc. Moreso a confusion on the point I was trying to make here. He says we already have tags for such things. I'm proposing that viewing stats should depend on whose eyes you are seeing out of. Heck, perhaps have the ability to toggle between absolute strength(A Human is somewhat strong, a Titan is ridiculously strong) and relative strength based on your current race(From the titans eyes, he is an average no-name strong. That human is cripplingly weak).