Print

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

[forsaken1111]

I'm fairly certain the majority of people here on bay12 would understand that phrase (DF has a steep learning curve) and what the meaning behind it is. I'm also fairly certain that most people here understand the meaning behind the joke chart presented earlier in this thread.

This isn't a communications issue, as far as I can tell.

[scriver]

Indeed. In fact the only one who seem to have an issue with this communication is OP.

[GavJ]

I'm also fairly certain that most people here understand the meaning behind the joke chart presented earlier in this thread.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=69680.0
^
One bay12 forum thread where on the first page, people were already going "wait, shouldn't that be flipped?" etc. In fact, it was the very first respondant to the graph being posted (not the same one as earlier here. An even more obviously joking one)!

I'm sure everybody gets the joke, yes. But the curves and axes and such are likely to lead to confusion and "eh?" and undermine the joke if made up arbitrarily or shoddily chosen.

I'm not saying this is of any momentous importance! I'm mainly just confused/curious why this receives so much pushback about something that seems pretty clear and straightforward...

"Hey maybe let's avoid making graphs that barely or don't agree with themselves or have titles that don't remotely match what's in them?"  "OMIGOD NO YOU MONSTER how could you suggest that!" mer?

[BoredVirulence]

If I say "Dwarf Fortress has a steep learning curve." and the personing listening understands the information I am expressing "Dwarf Fortress is hard to learn" then the communication is successful.

Yes. In other words, you have a standardized definition between the two of you.

By standardized, I don't mean worldwide. I mean within the relevant community communicating, just like you're saying.  But as we can see from the thread, even within the tiny community of relevant people for DF graphs, almost everybody has their own idea of how the axes etc. should be for colloquial learning curves. I.e. they all think of the curves as being different things! Thus, the kind of giver and receiver common ground relationship you described above doesn't exist in this case.

They might be able to muddle through and eventually understand one another after some double takes and head scratching, sure. People are smart. But that would be in SPITE of the terminology and the diagrams, not thanks to them.

Except that, "steep learning curve" is a standardized way to say, "something is difficult." It may be contrived, but its well understood and accepted (English, as we all know, doesn't require any formal standardization, generally whatever people understand is, or will become, English). Get over it. I don't like the "word" "selfie" but I don't throw a fit (yes, I'm calling this thread a fit) whenever its used.

I don't mind a good spirited debate, but the line between someone involved in such a debate, and a troll, is thin.

One bay12 forum thread where on the first page, people were already going "wait, shouldn't that be flipped?" etc. In fact, it was the very first respondant to the graph being posted (not the same one as earlier here. An even more obviously joking one)!

I'm sure everybody gets the joke, yes. But the curves and axes and such are likely to lead to confusion and "eh?" and undermine the joke if made up arbitrarily or shoddily chosen.

I'm not saying this is of any momentous importance! I'm mainly just confused/curious why this receives so much pushback about something that seems pretty clear and straightforward...

"Hey maybe let's avoid making graphs that barely or don't agree with themselves or have titles that don't remotely match what's in them?"  "OMIGOD NO YOU MONSTER how could you suggest that!" mer?

I would redirect you here...

I'm just going to make a note, the graph that you hate so much was never made by DF fans, it was originally for Eve Online if I remember correctly. Blame them, someone just hijacked it for DF, and it makes all the more sense for it.

Also I would point out that the graph does have a mistake, but its not the mistake you think it is.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Look at the graph's Y axis. Its not a learning curse, the graph's title is misleading wrong. Its a completely different graph. If anything, its a function of how difficult the game is at any given point, and its purpose has little to do with learning, and really just shows the rate of change of difficulty...

Minor consideration. The graph has 2 faults. Its not a learning curve, its a graphical representation of difficulty as it corresponds to time progressed, mainly to demonstrate the rate of change of difficulty. However there is a purposeful flaw that the function for DF violates the vertical line rule of functions. Thats for comedy.

[GavJ]

^ For the 10th time, I'm talking about graphs, not just saying the phrase.

When you put "learning CURVE" in a graph, that has a CURVE in it, obviously the curve in the title is referring to (or will be assumed to) the curve in the graph.

Thus, it loses its normal metaphorical "steep hill to climb" meaning, and now has to agree with the graph. As in, the curve drawn should have something to do with learning, to be a learning curve. (Most sensically, learning being the Y axis, just like you'd expect with "shoe size curve" or "temperature curve") And when it doesn't, it is confusing and silly.  It's a toooootally different situation than using it in a sentence only.

I would redirect you here...

There are half a dozen of them or more. Not just that one. The link provided to a bay12 thread above has at least two more in it, and additional ones are easy to find. Also, the one graph in question is labeled "learning curve" so yes, it is a learning curve by its own proclamation.

[BoredVirulence]

There are half a dozen of them or more. Not just that one. The link provided to a bay12 thread above has at least two more in it, and additional ones are easy to find. Also, the one graph in question is labeled "learning curve" so yes, it is a learning curve.

This is the original joke graph. Its not actually the original, but it is what inspired your contempt. I'm not talking about the dozen or so you made to make your point.

Reread what I said. It is MISLABELED. It says its a learning curve, its not.

[GavJ]

"It's mislabeled"
"It has incorrect content for its label"
Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe

Flips sides of the same coin. I would say we simply agree in that case.



(Also that's not the one that inspired the thread. It was an accumulation. There are whole bunches of them online. Type it into google images)

[BoredVirulence]

"It's mislabeled"
"It has incorrect content for its label"
Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe

Flips sides of the same coin. I would say we simply agree in that case.

No, you went out of the way to make the labeling correct, I pointed out the actual flaw. Everyone agrees its wrong to some extent, agreeing its wrong doesn't make you right. And I believe I just won some of that "Nerd Cred" mentioned previously.
Also, as I've pointed out, you really should be taking up your issues with the graph with the original author. It wasn't made by DF fans, it was hijacked. I believe the original audience was Eve Online fans. It would however have been funnier if they had corrected the labeling, but then it may have made less sense to most people.

[GavJ]

Are you really that determined to still keep fighting about it when we obviously have the same opinion?
A graph mismatching its title is a flaw. You can say that lots of ways. It's the same thing. We agree about it...

That said, that's only one graph. The others (two of which were most definitely made by DF players and are linked above) have various other problems. In some cases, it may also be a title mismatch. In other cases, the curves don't even match the axes, title having nothing to do with it, etc.

In one or two cases, the graphs are actually pretty sensical. This one, for example, works fine. Providing both a joke AND a consistent labeling and curve that means something you expect:

[hops]

Reading this argument is hurting my brain.

[Putnam]

Sorry, wasn't your entire argument based on the idea that "Communication is meaningless without standardization", which is patently untrue?

[BoredVirulence]

Now you are trying to further your argument, by saying there are a lot of graphs (most of which are derivitive) and then by posting one that you agree with?...
After a 5 minute search, I found approximately 10 "learning curves" Most were the modifications of the original one for Eve Online. One was the DF one re-hijacked by Eve Online with an arbitrary "Eve Online" function placed way above DF. And One was an unlabeled red line that describes similarly your graph (sharp increase in difficulty, then it quickly settles back to the bottom).

So I stand by my statement, the graph I linked to is the earliest "learning curve" attributed to DF, others are derivatives, or likely corrections. In the uncommon instance you find one unrelated, I would guess its made by a different community of fans of DF, not bay12. This could be wrong, but I see no evidence against it.

So I will again say, the linked one is the one you have a problem with. Instead of trying to redraw it and make the community look stupid, look for the real issue. There is nothing wrong with the original graph except 2 flaws previously mentioned:

• Its mislabeled, its not a learning curve like it says, someone worked backwards from the phrase "steep learning curve" and created something, then called it a learning curve. It isn't one, but it is something else. I prefer to say its a function of difficulty vs time spent playing. The best evidence is how it flattens and remains at its highest point, difficulty not learning. Its also obviously trying to gleam the rate of change of the function
• Its an improper function because it fails the vertical line test. I'm surprised you didn't point that out, since you insist on correctness everywhere you look

Having made my point, I'll leave. If anyone else has a correction to make to my statements, please message me, and I will consider your evidence and revise where necessary. Have a good day.

[catpaw]

A standardization is use of language. Take that. The egg was not before the chicken!

[BoredVirulence]

The egg was not before the chicken!

I personally disagree, but I think that my own logic can be used against me here. (I do love a good debate)
A chicken was hatched from an egg that was laid by something very similar to a chicken. (Best over simplification of evolution I've ever read, if I do say so myself)

Spoiler: Ranting about how I'm also wrong. (click to show/hide)

The criteria is modified by suggesting an egg that hatches a chicken laid by "another species" qualifies. It may not, since the species that is very similiar to a chicken doesn't qualify in the argument I proposed.
Also, my over simplification of evolution suggests that between those two generations there is an actual line between species, which doesn't line up with evolution at all.

[catpaw]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a8pI65emDE

It is also wonderful example about the discussion of definition of a chicken-egg? Albeit we all used the word egg hundrets of times, and made graphics with eggs without that thought about it.