Print

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

[Stof]

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>

Quick, do not look at the Wiki, do not look at the game. Which one is better, Expert or Professional? Proficien or Adept? Skilled or Talented?

[gimli]

Hrm, numerical stats...I would like to have that. Not that the current stuff is bad or something, but I would surely prefer a numerical approach for stats.

[Gangsta Spanksta]

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>

Actually, there is a difference between an "RPG" game and an RPG game.  Most, RPG games are about you taking the role of the character and roleplaying.  Most, good dungeon masters keep creatures stats secret from you.  The reason being is that a very wimpy looking creature can actually be deadly.  If the player saw the stats, it would ruin the game.  

Also, because something is in popular use, doesn't mean it is the best method either.

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

[unclejam]

quote:Originally posted by Stof:
<STRONG>
Quick, do not look at the Wiki, do not look at the game. Which one is better, Expert or Professional? Proficien or Adept? Skilled or Talented?</STRONG>

If you took out everything that isn't immediately intuitive from DF, then there wouldn't be much left.  How to make steel.  How to floodgate farm.  How to build machines.  Don't tell me you just ripped through this stuff without looking at any references.  There are many more examples of this throughout the game too.

Anyway you can't have expert strength.  Or Adept Agility. Strength and Agility is what he is talking about.

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

[Gangsta Spanksta]

quote:Originally posted by unclejam:
<STRONG>

If you took out everything that isn't immediately intuitive from DF, then there wouldn't be much left.  How to make steel.  How to floodgate farm.  How to build machines.  Don't tell me you just ripped through this stuff without looking at any references.  There are many more examples of this throughout the game too.

Anyway you can't have expert strength.  Or Adept Agility. Strength and Agility is what he is talking about.

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

Also he purposely choose the character levels -- of which some aren't as descriptive -- vs. A Character's description appearance wise.  The player levels, are moreso there to know how skilled your character is in their profession, and you learn what they mean in the beginning of the game.  It has nothing to do with how dangerous looking a creature is, which is where descriptive writing would be involved. It's two different things, and I have already said that I think it would be a mistake to show an enemies level, such as Goblin Guard Level 3 and a Goblin Guard Level 4 standing next to each other.  That is something you would not know.  Only things that your dwarf can see should be describe, in the way he would see it.

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

[BDR]

quote:Originally posted by Stof:
<STRONG>
Quick, do not look at the Wiki, do not look at the game. Which one is better, Expert or Professional? Proficien or Adept? Skilled or Talented?</STRONG>

Not sure, but I'll guess Professional.  Adept.  Talented.

EDIT: What do you know, I got them all right.    Not what you were expecting, was it?

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

[Gangsta Spanksta]

quote:Originally posted by BDR:
<STRONG>

Not sure, but I'll guess Professional.  Adept.  Talented.

EDIT: What do you know, I got them all right.  

[BDR]

Pah! It's not my fault the gods don't consider you fit enough to receive their inspiration!  :p

[Morbo]

I like the current stat system better. At a quick glance and a bit of thought you can determine how tough or strong something is and what course of action should be taken. With a number system you have to slink around the net finding which numbers do what and if they are good and as lumin said, strategy guides and grinding will start to happen. This will probably detract from the fun factor for quite a few people I know. There are only two things that are important in games. Fun and lasting appeal. If it's fun and long lasting its better and any state of the art graphics game.

I don't understand why people used non native speakers as an excuse to get rid of the current system. My first langauge is Croatian and only learned english quite recently. The system's fine for me.

[Fishersalwaysdie]

Yeah seriously, if you are too lazy to learn English properly you are too lazy to play DF.

[Chork]

quote:Originally posted by Gangsta Spanksta:
<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.      

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with properly-formed arguments and grammar -- until that becomes the topic of discussion rather than the original talking points.  Not everyone has those skills, and debunking their argument as improperly-formed just makes you sound like you're trying to bludgeon them with your brain.  I would call that an unfair advantage (Bully!) and hence, the anti-intellectualism.  You can make valid arguments all you want, but on the internet, nobody else can be expected to play by those rules.  Better to make your arguments and hope that you've swayed other minds.

Besides, I'd far rather it come to a deathmatch than a pissing match.  

Truth of the matter is, the longer this thread goes (and the more difficult I find it to pull myself away) the more the argument falls in favor of the DF purists who think stats would ruin the game.  "Topples" may be a better term.

It really is a qualitative and special kind of game, and if you don't get that, you fail to see the forest for the trees.  I wouldn't cry in my mead if Toady were to humor the request and implement it in the .ini, but there are a million cooler things on his plate that would add way more to the gameplay than what I would, at the end of the day, consider a dumbing down of the system.

That isn't to say that quantitative measurements can't be intelligent -- just that Toady and ThreeToe have created a gorgeous qualitative game in a sea of quantitative games.  It's far more right-brain than left-brain.  We (artificial intelligence geeks) completely cream ourselves over this sort of thing.

I believe that also summarizes what a lot of the "against" faction have had to say about it.  Minus the creaming, of course.

I've also managed to completely beat a dead elephant into chunks.

[ November 08, 2007: Message edited by: Chork ]

[arthos]

Hello people...
I don't want to take sides, but I have to agree with my brother in this topic, and not because he is my bother.
The numerical RPG stat system is widely accepted everywhere. This doesn't means, that Dwarf Fortress must use it. The key point here is, that since Dwarf Fortess can be configured very easily using the .ini file, I don't see that why couldn't this system being added later on for the players who would like to use it.
Those players who would prefer the current system, wouldn't be forced to use it.
Everyone would be happy that way.
Just my 2 cents.

a.

[ November 08, 2007: Message edited by: arthos ]

[spu00trb]

I still think the answer is a better and more detailed written description system. Simply saying "mighty" is conceptually OK, but not really in keeping with the detail provided (in desriptive form) in the rest of the game.

Look at the artifacts, they menace with spikes, and have engravings of X doing Y to Z. The dwarves give you all kinds of info about what they like, but an epic dragon? Well, its Mighty and Massive.

Not numbers, but better and more interesting descriptions.

This is an undead carp. It is 30 feet long, a large example of its species. It can survive on land and on water. It is vicious and fearless. Undead carp eat only meat, preferring the flesh of humanoids. Undead carp are very hard to kill, and can eat a dwarf in a single bite.

[Axehilt_VuP]

quote:Originally posted by Gangsta Spanksta:
<STRONG>What you see as a feature of the game, I see as something that hasn't been implemented yet, because it is more difficult to code than say adding a new item to the game.  Since DF is a living work in progress, I have a strung hunch that hiding things, like the insides of a goblins fortress, will be an eventual -- or is a planned -- edition of the game.  It is unrealistic to see what treasures are inside a goblin's hideout.  To me that is due to an unimplemented feature that should be part of the game.</STRONG>

Wha--?

Look, you'll always have line of sight of everything in your own Fortress.   Always.  It would utterly fail as a game in the kingdom-running genre if you couldn't see everything you controlled.

So the fact is you do see everything in your own fortress and that's essentially cheating.  It's "godmode" line of sight.

So "it's cheating!" is a bad argument against numerical stats in DF.  However there are plenty of other good arguments that can be used to argue why they shouldn't exist (and have been made in this thread).  And the best of those arguments is that you just don't have perfect knowledge of your foes - just like you don't expect to have "godmode" line of sight in a Goblin fortress, you won't have "godmode" knowledge of each goblin's stats.

[arthos]

quote:Originally posted by Axehilt_VuP:
<STRONG>

 However there are plenty of other good arguments that can be used to argue why they shouldn't exist (and have been made in this thread).  And the best of those arguments is that you just don't have perfect knowledge of your foes - just like you don't expect to have "godmode" line of sight in a Goblin fortress, you won't have "godmode" knowledge of each goblin's stats.</STRONG>

I inspected this thread and many posts, but I cant find a good argument against the numerical stat system. Some people posted their subjective opinions, that is all. I don't agree with any of those for example, but I am subjective also. We cannot have an objective opinion in this question.

a.