Print

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

[GavJ]

Cause like I specified a couple of posts back, what I'm more annoyed by is admittedly not so much the verbal phrase alone, but when people actually attempt to draw out the graph and STILL totally screw it up, as in like, not even making their graphs internally consistent. People who just throw up some axes that sound reasonable, and then draw shallow and steep curves obviously without having thought about what they actually mean on the graph they drew, and then calling it a day. Seriously? Who posts an infographic without actually stopping and thinking about the data in the infographic?

Or arguably even worse, one or two I saw seemed like they DID notice that it didn't add up, and yet instead of reconsidering or stepping back for a moment, decided to just flip the graph around so that everything shallow became steep, lol? Nevermind that's not how graphs work, the turn of phrase must be correct so this must be the way rawrrr!!!

It just oozes dumb. 

The verbal phrase alone though is totally different, because it's vastly easier to just say without considering the actual axes etc. (and understandably so) And that's cool, I get that.

[Il Palazzo]

I think the learning curve of both colloquial and technical usages of learning curves is quite steep.

[Playergamer]

Can we just give up this argument?

As for the graphs, learning curve is not how much you need to learn, it is how hard it is to learn and progress.

Thus, DF's curve goes straight up, while other games have a smoother learning curve.

((Nerd cred? Seriously?))

[Robsoie]

The only acceptable method to settle the argument is to mod in DF those so called "steep learning curve" and "shallow learning curve" guys and then make them fight in the DF arena.

[alexandertnt]

As for the graphs, learning curve is not how much you need to learn, it is how hard it is to learn and progress.

I am pretty sure the game starts off hard to learn and progress and becomes easier as time passes, produce a downwards slope.

(Oh god, what have I become )

[scriver]

Cause like I specified a couple of posts back, what I'm more annoyed by is admittedly not so much the verbal phrase alone, but when people actually attempt to draw out the graph and STILL totally screw it up, as in like, not even making their graphs internally consistent. People who just throw up some axes that sound reasonable, and then draw shallow and steep curves obviously without having thought about what they actually mean on the graph they drew, and then calling it a day. Seriously? Who posts an infographic without actually stopping and thinking about the data in the infographic?

Yet these graphs you are talking about are also using the colloquial meaning. They're drawn to be funny, not to be published in any professional psychology papers.

[Playergamer]

Cause like I specified a couple of posts back, what I'm more annoyed by is admittedly not so much the verbal phrase alone, but when people actually attempt to draw out the graph and STILL totally screw it up, as in like, not even making their graphs internally consistent. People who just throw up some axes that sound reasonable, and then draw shallow and steep curves obviously without having thought about what they actually mean on the graph they drew, and then calling it a day. Seriously? Who posts an infographic without actually stopping and thinking about the data in the infographic?

People who don't really give a **** about whether they are technically correct, but whether they are understood. There's no logical reason to switch meanings that everyone understands back to their "correct" usage, just semantics. I, personally, would rather people understand what I'm saying then what I am saying be technically correct.

((Who even says "whom" anyway?))

[Dirst]

People who don't really give a **** about whether they are technically correct, but whether they are understood.

Are you saying people could care less? 

[Playergamer]

People who don't really give a **** about whether they are technically correct, but whether they are understood.

Are you saying people could care less? 

*Highfive over the internet.*

[Deus Asmoth]

I've always understood the learning curve to be time in the x axis, and the amount you need to know in order to function properly on the y axis. So for DF, you'd get the graph going up rapidly in the early stages, then slowly levelling off, while other games that introduce concepts one at a time would have the shallow curve.

[Talvieno]

I understand GavJ's point, and he's technically correct, as far as traditional usage goes. HOWEVER... When the phrase "steep learning curve" is used, it doesn't refer to the same methodology - it's actually reversed. The reason is as follows:

Mountains are steep, and take a lot of skill to climb. Hills, on the other hand, are shallow, and are a relative walk in the park. No pun intended.


Making this graph correct:


It's an interesting point in English. English, like most languages, isn't defined academically, but by what the population as a whole accepts a word or phrase to mean. When the great majority of people say "a steep learning curve", they mean "lots to learn in order to play", making the commonly used definition correct. The important thing is that you are understood, and intuitively, "steep" or "rapid" sounds considerably more difficult than "shallow" or "slow". This is contrary to the traditional academic definition, yes, but most people don't specifically study this, so if you say DF has a shallow learning curve to anyone at all? They'll think it means it's easy.

If you say "steep learning curve" to anyone at all, unless you're talking specifically about academics and not games (and the person you're talking to is aware of it), you're using the definition that defines the phrase as (and it's from the wikipedia article you quoted, GavJ):

Yes, it represents rapid progress, but this is because in order to survive in the game at all, you have to pick things up quickly or you lose... much as in the same way as you need to learn quickly if you're going to go mountain climbing.

Therefore, GavJ is both right, and wrong.


I'm going to duck back out of this now. But guys, don't fight, and don't pick at other people. That's not how we do things here, right?

[Robsoie]

It was time for Science! to give a conclusion

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

16 Shallow Learning Curves   vs   16 Steep Learning Curves




A quick look at the opponents



And it's on, both side rush at each other



First casualty !


It's a bloodbath , blood is flying everywhere !



Until the Steep Learning Curves emerge victorious, badly wounded




the Steep Learning Curves have prevailed.

[expwnent]

Only on the DF forums do we get into this heated a discussion over a graph.

[Tawa]

Alright, how über did you make the steeps?

[seaturtlehorsesnake]

ok, here is my solution!



it's a pie chart eating a sideways bar graph.

the section of the pie chart that's shaped like a pie chart represents the pie chart section of a pie chart.