Print

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

[Calathar]

When I first started, I accidentally downloaded 40d instead of the newer one, and my first fortress lasted 15 years until I gave up how to how easy it was.

Then I upgraded my version and died immediately.

So I don't agree.

Sure, the evil regions are more lethal, some forgotten beasts are deadly, etc, necromancers.  But I am referring to the much steeper learning curve knowledge curve needed just to get a fortress going as a new player, without even considering the interface.  Deadly wildlife.  No caverns for resources not on the surface.  Legendary wrestlers (because dwarves with weapons were too hard to setup) punching new recruits to death.  Booze only stored in barrels, which meant wood was much more important.

A new player would start playing in a forest with a small river flowing through.  He had a limited amount of wood, but the first thing to do is make some beds so the dwarves wouldn't sleep on the ground.  He sets up his hunter for hunting, who is soon mauled by a cougar.  Now the cougar is named, so the new player makes an axedwarf to kill the now-named cougar.  Dwarves are getting thirsty.  He queues up booze, but there are no barrels.  He tries making barrels but there is no wood.  He assigns trees for cutting, but there is only one axe, and that belongs to the axedwarf.  After a long process of learning about jobs, the axedwarf, now a citizen, starts cutting trees down.  Dwarves are now very thirsty.  He queues up barrels.  He queues up booze, but there are no barrels.  All of the barrels are being used as food containers.  The new player finds the well on the wiki in an attempt to save the thirsty dwarves, but he needs a bucket.  He tries making buckets but there is no wood.  All the wood is being used to make barrels, which are all being used as food containers.  The dwarves in desperation go to the river for a drink, ignoring jobs like making barrels.  Except carp scare them from drinking resulting in announcement spam and no jobs getting done.  The dwarves that reach the river are pulled in (or dodge in?) by carp.  The dwarves can't get out because there are no slopes on rivers in this version, and are eaten by the carp.  No migrants arrive because migrants are actually a valuable resource in this version, and too many dwarves have died, which means none arrive.  The remaining dwarves are either tantruming or dying of thirst.  Your settlement has crumbled to its end.

Of course, the main problems that caused this lost fort weren't hard to handle if you knew how to take care of them.  But those problems are no longer in the current version.  Wildlife is not nearly as deadly.  Wood isn't needed for storing booze - stone will do that just fine.  The military has been redone.  Slopes so dwarves can get out of ponds and rivers.  Migrants are plentiful.  It's really easy to get a fort going as a new player in the current version, except for the interface.

The OP is right - DF has a shallow learning curve. 

[GavJ]

If you and I both know that grass is green, then we have a standardized understanding of the color of grass.

Been watching this thread, and feel the need to poke my head in on this point.

Is a brown patch on your lawn no longer 'grass?'  There are grasses that are blue, yellow, golden, red, pink. . . . or are they not grasses?

Sometimes, standardization is a detriment to communication.  Not only can it stultify the natural evolution of a language; in cases like this, it narrows the scope of a term to the point where it's powerless to describe reality in all its glory.

/ducks out the back door

Yeah, I simplified it for sake of brevity. But when you expand the topic, it's all still standardization FACILITATING our communication. I don't see how it detriments it. You don't hold onto those things as sacrosanct law (like grass is green). In reality, the standardization is a result of a complicated mixture of rules of thumb and sentences like "usually is green" and visual memories and experience in a shared world, all of which hold sway but are not absolute by themselves. But we all still have basically the same set of them overall. Thus, standardization. Thus, we can communicate. So for example, you and I might both have rules of thumb like:

* "usually grass is green"
* "usually grass is long and thin and comes in bunches"
* "usually grass is found in certain places like lawns and decorative planters and fields"
* "usually grass is either short or it is long with tassels on top"

In a given instance, you check off ding ding ding "hey 3 out of 4 things, probably grass."  And I also go ding ding ding ding"hey 4 out of 5 things, probably grass" (note slightly different numbers, slight individual differences, not necessarily a problem).  We have standard beliefs you and I on at least several rules of thumb about grass that happened to apply here at the same time in order for us to share a belief in the label of "grass." If we PERFECTLY agreed, it would be more efficient, but partial agreement is sufficient for usually-good-enough-communication.

At the same time, we also have visual or other memories of grass, tied to the label, which can act in parallel to semantic understandings like "is usually green." Just featural similarity to past instances of grass can be enough to trigger a categorization, without any explicit rules. Since you and I live in the same world and probably the same country, even, these experiences largely overlap and thus have standardization between us.

Even if neither of us knew the word "grass" and had never seen it before one day when we saw a few examples, we could probably still agree that "whatever that is, it's the same plant as that one over there, and it's not the same as this one" based purely on our shared/standardized visual experience.  OR even if I hadn't seen it, you could describe it with metaphors and such of things we DO share, and thus give me the common ground.  It all still revolves around standardization of our knowledge, one way or another.

[WoobMonkey]

Yeah, I simplified it for sake of brevity. But when you expand the topic, it's all still standardization FACILITATING our communication. I don't see how it detriments it. You don't hold onto those things as sacrosanct law (like grass is green).

So, then, what's a standard, if not the baseline rule?

In reality, the standardization is a result of a complicated mixture of rules of thumb and sentences like "usually is green" and visual memories and experience in a shared world, all of which hold sway but are not absolute by themselves. But we all still have basically the same set of them overall. Thus, standardization.

That isn't standardization, though.  That's agreed-upon assumptions.  Standardization is, by definition, the rule without exception.  Not a fuzzy concept, but a concrete, replicated, yes, 'law.'

you and I might both have rules of thumb like:

<snip>

 If we PERFECTLY agreed, it would be more efficient, but partial agreement is sufficient for usually-good-enough-communication.

Or, conversely, we may have completely differing sets of criteria.  For example, a pothead's definition of 'grass' is very likely to differ from that of a landscaper's, which in turn is likely to differ from a molecular biologist's.  And the last bit, about partial agreement - isn't that exactly what most of the (not-you) posters on this thread have been trying to tell you, as related to 'learning curve?'

Since you and I live in the same world and probably the same country, even, these experiences largely overlap and thus have standardization between us.

Once again, similar experience is not the same as standardized experience.  You aren't describing how standards work.  Heck, to be truly pedantic, I'd like to mention that a 'standard' is a flag used in medieval warfare.  This is the proper, true use of the term.

Even if neither of us knew the word "grass" and had never seen it before one day when we saw a few examples, we could probably still agree that "whatever that is, it's the same plant as that one over there, and it's not the same as this one" based purely on our shared/standardized visual experience.  OR even if I hadn't seen it, you could describe it with metaphors and such of things we DO share, and thus give me the common ground.  It all still revolves around standardization of our knowledge, one way or another.

The bold negates your own argument.


--------

All discussion of grasses aside, let's also keep in mind that a grass is a physical object, in the concrete, objective, 'real' world.  A learning curve is not.  Since your linguistic analysis fails to even encapsulate reality, it's reasonable to presume that it has even less pertinence when applied to abstract concepts.  Particularly when applied to colloquial usage.

Basically, not only are you tilting at windmills here (which is fun - I'm not aiming to discourage it, by any means!); you're doing so with a rubber fish in place of a lance.

[Keldane]

Basically, not only are you tilting at windmills here (which is fun - I'm not aiming to discourage it, by any means!); you're doing so with a rubber fish in place of a lance.

I feel that this needs to be a game.

[FrankMcFuzz]

Basically, not only are you tilting at windmills here (which is fun - I'm not aiming to discourage it, by any means!); you're doing so with a rubber fish in place of a lance.

I feel that this needs to be a game.

Lancefish: Kingdoms of Tilty Windmills

I'll propose the item to steam greenlight immediately.

[Keldane]

Lancefish: Kingdoms of Tilty Windmills

I'll propose the item to steam greenlight immediately.

Hmm... Perhaps, with a name like that, the protagonist would be a fish, riding a seahorse, wielding a frozen swordfish as a lance, and traveling over the land in a magic ball of water that rolls along like an inverse Katamari, slowly losing volume unless you can defeat the windmills, which are secretly operating water pumps that have sucked up all of the protagonist's brothers and sisters. Each destroyed windmill frees a relative and spills forth water that is absorbed into your ball, thus staving off dehydration and eventual death.

[FrankMcFuzz]

Lancefish: Kingdoms of Tilty Windmills

I'll propose the item to steam greenlight immediately.

Hmm... Perhaps, with a name like that, the protagonist would be a fish, riding a seahorse, wielding a frozen swordfish as a lance, and traveling over the land in a magic ball of water that rolls along like an inverse Katamari, slowly losing volume unless you can defeat the windmills, which are secretly operating water pumps that have sucked up all of the protagonist's brothers and sisters. Each destroyed windmill frees a relative and spills forth water that is absorbed into your ball, thus staving off dehydration and eventual death.

With the amount of unecessary thought you put into that, it's no wonder you're here on the Dwarf Fortress forums!

[catpaw]

This is a classical philosophical question, where do categories come from and how can two persons ever be sure to mean the same thing with a category. Every definition of a category uses other categories. And the classical example here is colors.

I advice to take some philosophy classes if you are that kind of person that thinks to know everything better. After a few years you *will* discovers you know nada.

for example:

"The meaningfulness and/or efficiency of communication is directly correlated with the degree of standardization and common ground amongst the involved parties."

Define "meaningfulness", what a dizzy concept.

"effiiency?" This very thread is the opposite example of efficiency. 10 pages about a thing that before involved parties had never a problem of misunderstanding with? And in the first pages most clearly stated there is a common understanding what is actually ment, albeit the literal semantics might not be fully correct. Whats the result of this thread, people think all involved parties are donkers? Directly proportional to the amount of posts herein?

[varnish]

A gray d is a drunian, man! I just encountered one the other day, and.... actually it was pretty uneventful.

I've never been able to picture drunians in my mind. I can imagine some of the other cavern creatures, but drunians? I don't know. I guess it's supposed to be an underground lion centaur? Maybe?

Anyhow, I'll let you get back to whatever this topic is about.

[GavJ]

Define "meaningfulness", what a dizzy concept.

I meant something along the lines of "amount of content successfully transferred." Not actually that fuzzy, although maybe the word choice was.
As in, the more standardized you are, or the more common ground you have:
A) You transfer more stuff successfully.
B) You transfer it all more quickly and with fewer confusions and errors along the way.

I advice to take some philosophy classes

Done and done! I have degrees in psychology and philosophy, and am writing my dissertation on categories and similarity

That isn't standardization, though.  That's agreed-upon assumptions.  Standardization is, by definition, the rule without exception.

Dunno where you're getting that hardcore "standardization MUST mean SET IN STONE" point of view from, but it's not what I intended.

But no big deal, in order to fit your word choice preferences, just go ahead and mentally replace every single place I wrote "standardization" with "agreed upon stuff." Or probably more accurately "common ground" and you should be more on the same page with what I'm intending to say. *shrug*

And the last bit, about partial agreement - isn't that exactly what most of the (not-you) posters on this thread have been trying to tell you, as related to 'learning curve?'

I already said that "Yes, everybody will still get the joke in those joke graphs." Which comes from partial agreement.

But my question is "Why settle for partial agreement if you don't have to? Why not have them get the joke AND be totally on the same page with you about your axes and title and everything, ALSO?"
There's no reason to half ass it and be "good enough" for a chuckle and yet confuse on the math, when you can instead make a solid, coherent work that rings true and actually means something and also gets a laugh, all at the same time.

Why throw yourself in the middle of the the communication continuum when you can be on the high end? It's like the equivalent of writing a "ten bullet points why..." crap internet fluff article, instead of an actual piece of journalism. Or reading off your page of notes or your powerpoint in a lecture, instead of actually having a practiced speech that builds on your slides, etc.

(...except actually worse than either of those analogies, because most of the graphs are literally wrong in some way, despite still communicating the joke. Not just uninspired or boring or something.)

[catpaw]

I meant something along the lines of "amount of content successfully transferred." Not actually that fuzzy, although maybe the word choice was.

You monster! Using ill defined words choices! You can't say the concept is defined well, just the words weren't when you whole argument is the well definition of words.

As in, the more standardized you are, or the more common ground you have:
A) You transfer more stuff successfully.
B) You transfer it all more quickly and with fewer confusions and errors along the way.

Are we ambiguous again? You will have to differ between necessary and sufficient conditions if you'd want to be exact which you aren't

[GavJ]

generally there's no such thing as necessary and sufficient conditions, outside of logicians' armchairs. There are only "family resemblances."

Occasionally you might get a concept that has true nec. and suf. conditions. Like maybe some math term or something. If so, then you are currently residing at the fabled "complete and perfect common ground" end of that continuum from earlier, and you can have perfect communication. But that is exceedingly rare.

Most of the time it's greater versus lesser fuzzy family resemblances, and nobody has a damn clue what the actual mixture is exactly. But in most cases, you can hazard a pretty good guess as to relative positions on the continuum, if stuff isn't too close. For example "joke + underlying graph that doesn't make any sense or doesn't match its title" being lower than "joke + graph that makes sense." How much lower? 20%? 41% I dunno. Probably different for every person and even every day of the week or context for each person. But it's difficult to imagine any set of circumstances that would reverse that relationship. Maybe for a handful of folks. Not on the whole.

Attempting to nail any of this sort of thing down with actual, quantitative, formal models is very much pioneering edge of psychology frontier stuff right now.

[SmittySmitha]

GavJ It's actually extremely difficult to understand you because of how pedantic your writing is 

[catpaw]

Let me rephrase that so you understand it, just because you have common ground does not mean that communication is going to be successful. Whatever successful means, since you cannot not communicate anyway.

[Keldane]

Before I saw this thread, I had no idea that there was any other definition for 'learning curve' besides the colloquial one. From that perspective, you coming in here and telling everyone that "The way you're using that term is wrong because there's this other definition of it that is used in this specific field of study" comes across - and I mean this as a statement of my personal perspective and nothing more - as you posting a thread that says "Look at me! Give me attention! I'm smart and I'll prove it with irrelevant trivia!" (The use of the phrase 'nerd cred' probably has a significant amount to do with this impression.)

That aside, I have noticed a couple issues with your arguments, with one in particular driving me to post: Terms mean what you want them to mean. Really, that's what this whole thread has boiled down to; you have a particular definition of a term, and it's at odds with what everyone else understands it to mean, so you're trying to convince people to adopt your definition. In a couple of spots, it appears that when people have made arguments as to why they shouldn't have to adopt your definition, your response has been "the terms you're using to counter my argument don't mean what you intended them to mean, so your argument is invalid". When the same argument is used to counter your arguments, your response has been, basically, "what I said doesn't really matter as much as what I meant."

Which, in my opinion, is exactly why you should drop the subject and admit defeat.

The term you're trying to force everyone to use in a specific way is only used in that way within a specific field. In common language, it has a different definition. You can complain about how that's not the technical definition all you want and it won't change the fact that there are people out there who, like me, know no other definition for the term and consequently will teach their definition to others, and use the term in the context of the definition they understand. To borrow a term from your argument, the standardized definition of the term 'learning curve' is 'how difficult it is to learn something'. In effect, you're arguing in favor of creating ambiguity and reducing common ground between speakers attempting to communicate by trying to convince people to start using a commonly-used term in a manner that runs, from my perspective, completely contrary to the commonly accepted meaning.

Good on you for sticking to your guns. It's important to be able to stand up for something you believe in, even in the face of adversity. With that said, it's also important to know when to admit defeat, and if the revolving door of commenters coming in to state their disagreement before disappearing back to more productive pursuits is anything to go by, you're screaming into a hurricane right now. I'm going to continue using the colloquial definition of learning curve, because the odds are by far in my favour that doing so will ensure I have a common understanding with the people I'm speaking to, thus ensuring that we communicate effectively - and after all, wasn't effective communication a portion of your initial arguments in favor of the technical definition?