Print

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

[Witty]

Well, it would very much be in the DF tradition of depth to have a separate veterancy skill for each individual creature (cat leather pants anyone?). However, I think it'd make more sense/remove more clutter to categorize certain creature types into general groups when determining their hypothetical veterancy type.  Humans, elves, gobs and such could be medium humanoids. Giants, ogres and such would be large humanoids, and so on for flying creatures, quadrupeds and all that. Even the procedurally generated critters could fall into these categories.

All in all however, I think it's important to just accept the fact that DF will always be a game of many lists and types, and trying to shy away from that is a futile effort in the long term.

[SlyStalker]

Well, it would very much be in the DF tradition of depth to have a separate veterancy skill for each individual creature (cat leather pants anyone?). However, I think it'd make more sense/remove more clutter to categorize certain creature types into general groups when determining their hypothetical veterancy type.  Humans, elves, gobs and such could be medium humanoids. Giants, ogres and such would be large humanoids, and so on for flying creatures, quadrupeds and all that. Even the procedurally generated critters could fall into these categories.

All in all however, I think it's important to just accept the fact that DF will always be a game of many lists and types, and trying to shy away from that is a futile effort in the long term.

This would make it simpler, but then the depth is missing. There may be many subtypes to medium humanioids, or whatever group you want. I suppose it's all about a balance of complexity and simplicity.

[Chevaleresse]

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but StagnantSoul, you have no idea what you are talking about. As I already stated, combat style varies wildly between individual humans, even if they were all trained the same way using the same weapon. The variation between completely different species would be large enough to justify this. Contrary to popular belief, combat consists of more than simply "swinging a sword at someone."

[StagnantSoul]

I did kendo class from 11 to just before summer ended. The basic principal always remained the same, from the girl half a foot shorter than me and a lot lighter, to the teacher, who towered over me and played lacrosse and foot ball.

[SlyStalker]

I did kendo class from 11 to just before summer ended. The basic principal always remained the same, from the girl half a foot shorter than me and a lot lighter, to the teacher, who towered over me and played lacrosse and foot ball.

But what about HEMA? Kendo has a much different style to it than HEMA or other forms of swordfighting. The people you referred to fought the same way probably because they had the same instructor. Styles even vary from sensei to sensei because of personal tastes.

[Chevaleresse]

I did kendo class from 11 to just before summer ended. The basic principal always remained the same, from the girl half a foot shorter than me and a lot lighter, to the teacher, who towered over me and played lacrosse and foot ball.

yes, the basics may be the same, but you can't possibly say that fighting the former was the same as the latter. Fighting someone with longer reach requires very different strategy compared to the strategy needed against someone with shorter reach. I am a fencer, and have fought in all three of the traditional weapons. Even if you're in the same weapon and from the same class, each person has their own distinct strategy. A foilist will have very different bladework from an epeeist, they'll approach situations differently, and so on, and we're still talking about weapons with nigh-identical designs being used by members of the same species.

[GavJ]

This basic concept could probably be simplified and perhaps even made more realistic by keeping track of general variety of experience, period. Not bothering to keep track of experience with every single species (tons of bloated memory and detail).

For example, you could store the most recent species / individual fought or sparred with only, and every time the individual changes, you get 1 variety point, every time the species changes you get 10, or something. Build up 255, and you're maxxed out, good enough

Then to apply the value, if whatever you're fighting now is different than the last thing you fought on file, you get a penalty to your skills if your experience variety is < 255, proportionally.



Sort of like, "learn a few languages, new ones come easy" "Fight with a few different people/species, new adaptability comes easy"

[Chevaleresse]

^^You could simplify tracking by a fair amount by pulling from data that already exists; namely, the kills list. It's not a perfect solution, but it would create very little new memory usage.

[GavJ]

Kill lists! Good call.

1 - ((number of species killed) / 6) = penalty to military skills of some sort

Or thereabouts

[Authority2]

If combat styles already varied between towns to such a large extent, there's no reason why a goblin from one civ and a goblin from another civ would be more similar than one of them and a human. Add in the differing weapons, builds, skill levels etc and there's basically no point differentiating by race.
Categorizing by creature types like the above posters have said, however, makes sense.

[SlyStalker]

OK, so are we all agreed that there should be some sort of bonus to creatures that are veterans or not?