Print

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

[Felix the Cat]

quote:Originally posted by Tormy:
<STRONG>

Yes and the most successful football management game, Football Manager 2007 uses a numerical system and the online version also using that.
   :roll:

[ November 07, 2007: Message edited by: Tormy ]</STRONG>

You missed the point - I was saying that qualitative descriptions are not necessarily an impediment to non-native speakers of English. (Especially if those descriptions are in their native languages, but that may be beyond our resources here.)

[Tormy]

quote:Originally posted by unclejam:
<STRONG>

The first time you see a creature you should know nothing about it.  If you get your ass handed to you by it then you remember it for next time.  This is how all roguelikes work.</STRONG>

I guess you missed the point. Read my post again. Its not about that the player doesnt know anything about 1 particular race, its all about stats of all the creatures of all the different races. Now that you mentioned roguelikes, the best roguelikes are also using numerical stat systems, and the biggest majority of the RPG/strategy games also. I guess probably because its a crap system.    :roll:

[ November 07, 2007: Message edited by: Tormy ]

[Sean Mirrsen]

If you're a PLAYER, perfectionist or not, that means you are PLAYING the game. Try LIVING it.

Imagine yourself as that little @ on the screen, holding a bronze shortsword and clad in rope reed 'armor'. Now, you see a creature you've never seen yet, with a rather menacing description (once descriptions are in, for now a "giant cave spider" seems menacing enough, you just don't know exactly HOW giant it is), and seeming Mighty to boot. You see yourself as Agile and Tough. Would you expect yourself to go blindly charging the thing, or flee to return later, with company? You are completely on your own if you've only the description - that's living the game. You cab hope for luck and charge, you can throw some rocks to soften it up, you can form some kind of strategy regarding its weapons - like grabbing a bowman's bow for example. When you have numbers and things easily comparable - you'll be playing the game, making decisions an ingame character would not have made, like seeing that the mighty goblin is in fact 3 points weaker than you and deciding to take him on - while you would hesitate otherwise, and try to do something else.

Of course, there's hardly a reason to call devoted players "livers" (heh), but the concept is that in a game of numbers, numbers will rule. You shall always race for bigger numbers, disregarding natural playstyle. As long as DF is a game of descriptions, of story-telling, it will live as the greatest RPG ever conceived.

You know, I've recently played Diablo 2 to recheck my feeling on that one. Despite it being, ultimately, a game of numbers - for the player character - the fact that you don't see exact hitpoints and stats of monsters seems to support the game's atmosphere a bit, just enough to stop it from becoming an all-numbers game. A necromancer feels just right, I never keep track of the damage I or my skeletons do, I just try to enjoy the bloodfest we make together. For a game unsuitable for roleplay, D2 can be a little forgiving when it comes to that. It doesn't stop me from being wiped out by the demon in TalRasha's tomb though. Note: if I knew that thing's stats before I met it, I would never attempt to kill it until I was an order of magnitude more buff. That's playing the game. I tried to live it, and had to learn on mistakes - that makes it fun for me.

Also, in relation to the numerical system being popular - it's easy to do, and supports the gameplay by pushing the player to get the highest numbers. It's like Starcraft - the gameplay principles are so simple it isn't funny, the design's been copied over dozens of times, there are billions of players all over the world - but Total Annihilation's gameplay is still superior, both in possibilities and "advancedness". Anyone can make a game on hitscan projectiles, and anyone can play that game - but try real ballistics for a change, they are better and no less fun.

[ November 07, 2007: Message edited by: Sean Mirrsen ]

[unclejam]

quote:Originally posted by Tormy:
<STRONG>

I guess you missed the point. Read my post again. Its not about that the player doesnt know anything about 1 particular race, its all about stats of all the creatures of all the different races. Now that you mentioned roguelikes, the best roguelikes are also using numerical stat systems, and the biggest majority of the RPG/strategy games also. I guess probably because its a crap system.     :roll:

[ November 07, 2007: Message edited by: Tormy ]</STRONG>

But this isn't an RPG/strategy game.  Its a dwarf simulator.  Besides most of those games use numerical systems because there are outside skills and weapons that modify the numerical strength by +- points.  That doesn't happen in this game.  So its pointless to have a numerical system.

[Tormy]

quote:Originally posted by unclejam:
<STRONG>

But this isn't an RPG/strategy game.  Its a dwarf simulator.  Besides most of those games use numerical systems because there are outside skills and weapons that modify the numerical strength by +- points.  That doesn't happen in this game.  So its pointless to have a numerical system.</STRONG>

First off, Im pretty sure that later on lot of things will be added in DF [skills, magic spells etc] what will alter the stats of the units.
Second, its pointless for you not for everyone.

[Capntastic]

Tormy is being smug and attacking other people's points rather than defending his own to get +5 to his debate skill.

[Felix the Cat]

Some people just don't realize how special DF is :-(

[unclejam]

quote:Originally posted by Tormy:
<STRONG>

First off, Im pretty sure that later on lot of things will be added in DF [skills, magic spells etc] what will alter the stats of the units.
Second, its pointless for you not for everyone.</STRONG>

Instead of just saying that it needs to happen why not say why instead of 'I dont gets the current system'

[Gangsta Spanksta]

quote:Originally posted by Tormy:
<STRONG>

Allright, if we call the numerical system precise, how you call the current system?

Also someone please enlighten me:
If I see a frogman and a dragon, both of them ultra mighty, this means that those creatures are equally strong? according to their description, they are, however if they are, its making no sense.</STRONG>

It's been mentioned several times in the thread.  A Dragon would have a "Massive" modifier.  Obviously, A weaker Massive creature would be stronger than a Strong human-sized creature.  It has to do with Mass, the object with less running into the object of greater mass would generally feel a more noticeable effect.

[Gangsta Spanksta]

quote:Originally posted by Chork:
<STRONG>

Meh, you're fine.  Besides -- two "wrongs" still make a "right" in the majority of the world.  In my book, the appropriateness of a Godwin is directly proportional to activity of the Grammar Gestapo in a thread.  I'm a geek as much as anyone here, but it's certainly not my right to rub your nose in it.

That's why I think it should be settled in the arena.  There will be none of this fancy grammar or properly-formed argument or philosophy lesson.  There will be only pain.  Two dorf enter; one dorf leaves.

[ November 07, 2007: Message edited by: Chork ]</STRONG>

You know though, you do pretty much as you criticize though.  Philosophical lessons, such as bringing up the Godwin 'law', and using it to criticize others for several replies.    Also, whats wrong with properly-formed arguments and grammar, if it is not used to be elitist?  It sounds like a bit of anti-intellectualism, automatically defining someone use of it to be underhanded.

[Tormy]

quote:Originally posted by unclejam:
<STRONG>

Instead of just saying that it needs to happen why not say why instead of 'I dont gets the current system'</STRONG>

Ok your post made no sense.

Besides, I frankly dont understand some people in this thread. This numerical system as an option in the ini wouldnt be a problem for anyone. Why is it a problem for some of you, that XY would like to see a system like this SOMEDAY. Not now, but when Toady will have time to add it.

I will stop arguing, its pretty much pointless. Everything has been said already.

[Gangsta Spanksta]

quote:
You continue to argue that making things more realistic is going to lead to a more fun game, without even considering what doing so would actually accomplish.

I don't think I ever made that argument; if I did please quote.  I've said, realism and fun aren't always mutually exclusive.  That doesn't mean I don't want some things to be realistic.  It also doesn't mean that just because I want something to be realistic that it can't be fun.  Personally, I -- like others -- think the current system is more fun, despite being more realistic, than a stat based system.  Sometimes, making things less realistic decreases the fun too.  It is case by case, and I think you're generalizing.
 

quote:
For one, travel times would be virtually eliminated. A human can easily walk 4 kilometres per hour, yet apparently dwarves walk at a rate of a few metres per hour. You'd have to make sure that you have stringing materials for your crossbows, bathroom facilities with a working sewage system, and to remove all of the spoil from mining projects before you can move indoors. There are any number of "realistic" changes that could be made which wouldn't add anything useful or fun to the game.

Sure, there are a number of realistic changes that can be made to anything that wouldn't be fun.  There are also a number of unrealistic changes that can be made that aren't fun.

 

quote:
You've dodged the argument. You claimed that qualitative statements provide more information than quantitative ones. I've just shown that you're incorrect. Whether the dwarves can observe this information or not is completely irrelevant to the question of which type of statement contains more information.

I was talking about using descriptive words to describe things vs. numbers.  You are the one who brought in the words qualitative and quantitative into the arguement, to which I pointed out that something like strength 18 isn't really qualitive but a numeric index value in many cases.  Now you bring up "can lift a maximum of 4000kg" into the argument, but that statement *is* descriptive not something like STR: 1000, because it has the words "can lift a maximum of" and "kilograms" in it.  It is not a cold hard meaningless number. I have nothing wrong with the descriptive nature of that information, but knowing such information would be knowing something you shouldn't IMO.

 

quote:
Cheating makes any accomplishments in a game illegitimate. You can cheaet all you want in Angband, but what that means is that you can never actually win the game.

Now who is forcing, people how to play games?   the whole throwing weapons things in D&D is unrealistic.  like you have 99 throwing knives, and be that deadly.  Just an opinion.

[ November 07, 2007: Message edited by: Gangsta Spanksta ]

[Gangsta Spanksta]

quote:Originally posted by Felix the Cat:
<STRONG>Someone previously said that using words for skill ratings is bad because non-native English speakers play the game, and it's tough for them (or indeed for everyone) to figure out what's better than what.

Hattrick, a very successful browser-based soccer management game with over 940,000 users in 120 countries, uses descriptive skill ratings rather than numeric ones.</STRONG>

The way to handle that is localization. but honestly, I rather see more meaningful things coded.  Also note, that the game has a lot of text already in english.  Like someone asking you to speak to them for reasons of trading.  I really don't think you should design the game around non-native english speakers, unless someone is willing to volunteer for the job of adding localization to the code.  I mean using this kind of logic and the emotion and feelings it can bring with it, I can say that this game doesn't have support for the blind, and keyboards that have a brail reader.  Or the game moves to fast for someone who can't user their hands, and wears a contraption on their head to type.  I mean support for these are nice, but honestly should we force a non commercial volunteer to design for them, when they are probably more in it for the fun?  There are a lot of Japanese console games, in Japanese, what about us non Japanese speakers?

[Gangsta Spanksta]

quote:Originally posted by Tormy:
<STRONG>

Aha....well if this is correct, and I think it is, the players must know all creatures. Imagine what will happen if someone would like to mod in tons of creatures. Lot of species, and probably there will be -for example- ultra mighty creatures for all species. This is messed up imho. Right now the system is giving some hints for the player that how good that certain creautre is in combat. Sorry, but its just not enough for a perfecionist PLAYER.
  </STRONG>

you keep ignoring   the conveniently "Massive" modifier that would go in front of dragon.  I mean how many times has that been pointed out already?

[unclejam]

quote:Originally posted by Tormy:
<STRONG>

Ok your post made no sense.

Besides, I frankly dont understand some people in this thread. This numerical system as an option in the ini wouldnt be a problem for anyone. Why is it a problem for some of you, that XY would like to see a system like this SOMEDAY. Not now, but when Toady will have time to add it.

I will stop arguing, its pretty much pointless. Everything has been said already.</STRONG>

It is a problem for Toady though, since he has to add it.  We don't even know the underlying math for skills.  The skills might not even have 100 different levels so extrapolating it out to 100 when none of the interior calculations use it like that is silly.  You still haven't said why this would be a good idea, you have just said you would prefer it (for what I assume are personal reasons?), and then when anyone asks you why, you just claim they make no sense.  Its not exactly a convincing argument.