Print

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

[Gangsta Spanksta]

Well, I really wasn't against said option; I just thought it made more sense in a wizard mode, or difficulty level setting.  I suppose it isn't that much different from turning of weather in the init file, already.  I just don't see why people have a problem doing a little Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start, when it comes to things that lower difficulty in game play such as Hit Points.  So, if it is init file, I withdraw my object, but not my opinion.

[ November 06, 2007: Message edited by: Gangsta Spanksta ]

[Gangsta Spanksta]

[Rondol]

quote:Originally posted by Chork:
<STRONG>

Godwin for the win!</STRONG>

Hah! I lose doubly however, as the statement was an intentional use of Godwin's Law. It's a testament to the ridiculousness of the "debate" however that I used it at all... I suppose I ought to have let the arguments go on for a couple more pages before using it... Do I still get some points for making the analogy at least make sense, rather than simply saying "You sound like Hitler"?

[Chork]

quote:Originally posted by Rondol:
<STRONG>

Hah! I lose doubly however, as the statement was an intentional use of Godwin's Law. It's a testament to the ridiculousness of the "debate" however that I used it at all... I suppose I ought to have let the arguments go on for a couple more pages before using it... Do I still get some points for making the analogy at least make sense, rather than simply saying "You sound like Hitler"?</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 ]

[Tormy]

quote:Originally posted by Felix the Cat:
<STRONG>

You are looking for "precise". "Perfectionist" cannot describe an inanimate object or an idea, such as a computer game. Saying that a 'traditional stat system' is perfectionist has about much validity as saying that a rock is perfectionist.

A perfectionist is a person who seeks to eliminate all faults, real or perceived, from his or her work.

Something that is precise has a high degree of accuracy.

Sorry, but you insisted on bringing grammar into the discussion.</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.

[Chork]

quote:Originally posted by Tormy:
<STRONG>
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>

Leg wrestling?

[Turgid Bolk]

quote:Originally posted by Tormy:
<STRONG>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>

No, it means that they're both strong for their species. "Ultra Mighty" means different things for a frogman and a dragon. An "agile" dwarf is still not as fast as a "no descriptor" elf. Even if a dwarf and an elf are both "agile", the elf is faster.

The stats are not absolute, they're relative to the creature. That's how I understand it, anyway.

[ November 07, 2007: Message edited by: Turgid Bolk ]

[Buoyancy]

quote:What constitutes good game design and what does not is a matter of opinion -- not fact; you can't know it. Fun and Realism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

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.  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.

quote:And how did your dwarves learn this information? There also the massive modifier you could use in the description along with others. You tend to stick with "really strong" for argument. I really think knowing how much a creature can lift is cheating. Sorry.

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.

quote:If a creature can lift a 4000kg is useless information? I'm used to lbs but it still sounds like a lot. There is a difference between you and me. You take offense at the insinuation that you maybe somehow cheating at a game. I do not. In fact, if I play a game like Angband, I constantly cheat by making copies of the savefile, which the game automatically deletes and the documentation says is cheating.

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.

quote:What about seeing hit points? If you can't turn that into a tactical advantage, I would be stunned.

So what if a person can turn it into a tactical advantage?  I can also use the fact that I'm smarter than a computer to create a tactical advantage.  Creating a tactical advantage is hardly cheating.

quote:Exactly, you can do anything you want in a single player game you want. I don't consider cheating at a single player game wrong either.

Actually, it's pretty obvious from your posts in this thread that you do consider it wrong.  You were the one who posited that it would be a bad thing for people using options that provide more information to post about their accomplishments on a forum.

quote:Is this weak spot in armor often hit by darts? Iron armor?

Why not?  Armour hardly covers every location on a person's body, and can't cover the most vulnerable parts (the major joints all have arteries running close to the surface) with anything other than flexible materials.  Any attack that exceeds AC in D&D is one that bypasses armour.  You are also likely assuming that a dart is referring to the tiny objects used for target practice in the modern era instead of something closer to a throwing knife.

[lumin]

When I first found Dwarf Fortress, I too wanted to see the stats quantified.  After playing for the past year, however, I've found that the current ambiguous system is much better.  

Moving to a numerical system means you move toward meta-gaming and that means less story-telling.  Knowing exactly how strong you are compared to an enemy means that you will avoid taking risks and start focusing on your stats.  

Do you know where Hit Points (and other numerical stats) came from in computer/console games?  They all spawned from table-top Dungeons and Dragons.  When the first computer games were made, programmers took the only gaming system they knew and converted it to code.  Computers can do much more than Pen & Paper  RPG's, it can handle all of the numbers in the background and display things to the user that they should only be intended to see.

A good dungeon master plays as the computer.  He tries his best to hide the 'stats' from the players and gives them descriptions that you would see in real life.  It is only out of habit that game designers use numbers for stats, they spoon-feed the player with stats that the computer only needs to know.

I guarantee that if you change the current system to a quantified system, you will be moving more toward a World of Warcraft system.  People will stop writing fantastic stories about Dragons, and Elephants, and they'll start posting more 'strategy guides' on where to spawn-camp and how to get your character 'uber-powerful'.

Count me out.

[Felix the Cat]

Storytelling is a good point by the previous poster.

You can go take a look, but I doubt any of ThreeToe's stories have lines like "Enid ran from the 37-strength dragon because she was down to 2 hit points".

Tormy, a numerical system would be precise, the current system is imprecise. Neither is perfectionist, though perhaps you are a perfectionist.

[unclejam]

If numbers were displayed, the dwarfs would need an extra skill.  'Evaluation'  If their evaluation skill was low, strength on a 100 point scale would be displayed as 20?-30? for example.  But then, how would you know your exact Evaluation skill?  A new skill would have to be added.  'Evaluation of Evaluation'  If their evaluation of evaluation skill was low, evaluation on a 100 scale would be displayed as 20?-30? for example.  But then, how would you know your exact Evaluation of Evaluation skill?  A new skill would have to be added.  'Evaluation of Evaluation of Evaluation'  If the evaluation of evaluation of evaluation skill was low, evaluation of evaluation on a 100 point scale would be displayed as 30-40? for example.  But then, how would you know your exact evaluation of evaluation of evaluation skill?  A new skill would have to be added.  'evaluation of evaluation of evaluation of evaluation'  If the evaluation of evaluation of evaluation of evaluation skill was low, evaluation of evaluation of evaluation on a 100 point scale would be displayed as 30-40?? for example.  But then, how would you know your exact evaluation of evaluation of evaluation of evaluation skill?  A new skill would have to be added.  'evaluation of evaluation of evaluation of evaluation of evaluation'

This is why we can't have exact numbers.  Besides, if you ever have a question of which skill modifier is higher than another, go to a workshop and press P, and walk up and down the restrictions of which skills can work there.  Its really easy and you don't even need a wiki or even internet!

[Felix the Cat]

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.

[Tormy]

quote:Originally posted by Turgid Bolk:
<STRONG>

No, it means that they're both strong for their species. "Ultra Mighty" means different things for a frogman and a dragon. An "agile" dwarf is still not as fast as a "no descriptor" elf. Even if a dwarf and an elf are both "agile", the elf is faster.

The stats are not absolute, they're relative to the creature. That's how I understand it, anyway.

[ November 07, 2007: Message edited by: Turgid Bolk ]</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.
 

[Tormy]

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>

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 ]

[unclejam]

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>

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.