Print

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

[unclejam]

quote:Originally posted by arthos:
<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.</STRONG>

There's 344 bloats and a numerical stat system isn't one of them.  Damn son how's that for an argument I think you just got pwned 'internet style'.

[arthos]

quote:Originally posted by unclejam:
<STRONG>

There's 344 bloats and a numerical stat system isn't one of them.  Damn son how's that for an argument I think you just got pwned 'internet style'.</STRONG>

...and what if its not on the development list? This was a suggestion, isn't it? Perhaps you should think before you post. Oh and lease save your retarded "I think you just got pwned..." messages for yourself. Thanks in advance.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Okay, objective opinion.

Toady and ThreeToe focus on storytelling rather than any arbitrary gameplay. It has been stated in magazine articles, in these forums somewhere, and the recent addition of PowerGoals also supports this. A numeric system where the player is aware of the underlying game mechanincs is detrimental to storytelling, even though it can be (and often is) converted to it.
Storytelling, e.g. in storytelling-type forum RPGs is often governed by common sense rather than calculations and numeric systems, because it is easier for an average human to remember a description than any set of numbers.
Additionally, for a game of roguelike appearance, imagination of the player is one of the main points supporting the intended depth of the gameplay. Unlike numbers, descriptive adjectives and phrases favor imaginative thinking, therefore further supporting the atmosphere of the game. In whole, a numeric representation of stats is both detrimental to the DF's creators' concept of the game, and unfitting in the otherwise descriptive environment relying on imagination of the player.

Dixi.

[arthos]

quote:Originally posted by Sean Mirrsen:
<STRONG>Okay, objective opinion.

Toady and ThreeToe focus on storytelling rather than any arbitrary gameplay. It has been stated in magazine articles, in these forums somewhere, and the recent addition of PowerGoals also supports this. A numeric system where the player is aware of the underlying game mechanincs is detrimental to storytelling, even though it can be (and often is) converted to it.
Storytelling, e.g. in storytelling-type forum RPGs is often governed by common sense rather than calculations and numeric systems, because it is easier for an average human to remember a description than any set of numbers.
Additionally, for a game of roguelike appearance, imagination of the player is one of the main points supporting the intended depth of the gameplay. Unlike numbers, descriptive adjectives and phrases favor imaginative thinking, therefore further supporting the atmosphere of the game. In whole, a numeric representation of stats is both detrimental to the DF's creators' concept of the game, and unfitting in the otherwise descriptive environment relying on imagination of the player.

Dixi.</STRONG>

Okay, this means that a numerical stat system shouldn't even exist as an option {to turn it on in the .ini file} in Dwarf Fortress, even if x number of players would like to see it. Yes this is clearly objective if you think so.

[Sean Mirrsen]

I just said it shouldn't exist. That doesn't mean it won't. It does already exist, because the computer can only work on numbers, it's not human. My - subjective - opinion is that the only place this should be found is wizard mode. An analysis of the problem, presented as an objective opinion above, also leads to believe that DF should be played without displaying underlying mechanics.

[Buoyancy]

quote:Originally posted by Gangsta Spanksta:
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.

I brought the terms into the discussion because they mean exactly the same thing.  A quantitative description refers to using numbers to describe information.  A qualitative description refers to using descriptive words.  The terms are just shorter and more precise for this type of discussion.  There are plenty of quantitative descriptions in dwarf fortress: from the exact number of drinks in a barrel to the number of bolts a marksdwarf carries.  These numbers have an intuitively obvious meaning, and require little to no documentation or interpretation to understand.  There are also a number of qualitative descriptors used to indicate relative skill and ability scores that are not intuitively obvious.  The order is currently:
Novice, No label, Competent, Skilled, Proficient, Talented, Adept, Expert, Professional, Accomplished, Great, Master, High Master, Grand Master, Legendary

Most of these words have no specific value associated with them, so the order would be just as meaningful as:
Novice, No label, Proficient, Competent, Professional, Accomplished, Talented, Skilled, Adept, Great, Expert, Master, High Master, Grand Master, Legendary

In fact, a dictionary or thesaurus would tell you that many of those words have exactly the same meaning.

quote: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.

Why shouldn't I know that information, or at least have some actual way to immediately, without having to refer to outside documentation, compare it to any given dwarf?  I already know that barrel #15 contains 3 units of dwarven rum, while barrel #1 contains 5 plump helmets.  A statement involving measurements with attached units does indeed contain more information than one without units, but having words attached to numbers don't turn it back into a qualitative descriptor.

[Jeon]

I have no problem with displaying the numerical values of some things (skill levels with numbers would help for sure), but there really isn't anything to display right now.

The values for strength, agility, toughness are 0-5 that you can see.  I think it's been shown that it goes above 5, but it is pretty meaningless since it doesn't effect many calculations at all once it reaches that level.

Every single creature with a certain stat bonus gets the SAME effect.  A strong groundhog would be able to carry the same weight without speed penalties as a strong elephant.  The stats system is very basic and simple and incomplete.  An agile groundhog has the same dodge and movement speed as an agile elephant.  A tough groundhog has the same damage reduction as a tough elephant (although size is a large factor in damage).

I'm not seeing how strength(1) is more beneficial than seeing Strong.

There are some other stats like... how badly they are bleeding, lack of air, lack of blood, pain, nausea, fatigue, tiredness, thirst, hunger, suffocating, drowning, etc.  Those might actually have some numbers with them but I'm not too sure they would mean much a player considering all the factors relating to death.  Hmmm, I'm at Heavy bleeding(24), Pale(18)... looks like I better... um... bleed to death I guess.

If you want an init option to show numbers that's fine... but I'm not sure there is anything useful to be shown at this point.

[Albert the Absentminded]

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>

That kind of 'perfectionist' belongs in the lollipop guild, frankly.

-Albert

[Chork]

Offtopic, but Albert -- time to update your sig.  

[unclejam]

quote:Originally posted by arthos:
<STRONG>

Okay, this means that a numerical stat system shouldn't even exist as an option {to turn it on in the .ini file} in Dwarf Fortress, even if x number of players would like to see it. Yes this is clearly objective if you think so.</STRONG>

Post Strength:  2504.65

[Rondol]

Hey guys! I just had a novel idea. We could stop arguing about whether or not stats should be in numbers, and let Toady decide! Since that's what's going to happen anyways, after all; all this arguing really means nothing since in the end none of us really get much say as to how Toady makes his game. We all have the right to make suggestions, something which has already been done, and Toady is the one who decides which suggestions get implemented and which don't.

In fact let's run a test. Hey, Toady, if you're actually still reading this thread, what do you think of the idea? Will you do it?

[BDR]

Could be that Toady is simply biding his time until the heat dies down a little to put his 2 cents in.  Besides, people *like* arguing; who are you to try and take that away from them?  :p

[Tormy]

quote:Originally posted by BDR:
<STRONG>Could be that Toady is simply biding his time until the heat dies down a little to put his 2 cents in.  Besides, people *like* arguing; who are you to try and take that away from them?    :p</STRONG>

Actually he is right. It is pointless to continue to talk in this thread.
Simply because some people would prefer to have a numerical system, some people would prefer to play with the current. So what are we arguing about?
If someone says that the numerical system is bad, what can I say? Thats plain bullsh*t. It is not bad, simply that person dislikes it. Frankly who cares? As my brother said correctly, these are subjective opinions.
Why any of you would like to ignore the fact that XY would like to play with a numerical system someday? No one in the DF community would be forced to use it.

So I say, lets stop this silly arguing, because we all know, that most of the posts are selfish and subjective here. Yes even mine. Ive made a suggestion that is all. If it wont be added, I can live with it, but its pointless to make up idiotic theories that which system is better and why.
The current system is good also, simply I would prefer the numerical one.

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

[BDR]

quote:Originally posted by Tormy:<STRONG>
Actually he is right. It is pointless to continue to talk in this thread.
</STRONG>

Er, I wasn't disagreeing with that.  Second line was a joke, see; it had the smiley face to show humorous intent and everything...  Oh well, at least I laughed at it.  

[Funkadelic Jive Turkey]

BDR, it's kinda wrong to shine the spotlight on Toady like that. You leave him with either the option of dumping more work on himself to please everybody, or openly alienating people.