12 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 41st comment:
Votes: 0
Your definition, as given, doesn't restrict what the meanings apply to, so, um, yeah. KaVir, I think you're starting to grasp at straws a little bit here, are going against very accepted usages of the term, and furthermore are turning a fairly trivial point into a major argument, so I'll propose agreeing to disagree here.
12 Jun, 2009, Runter wrote in the 42nd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
David Haley said:
Maybe the one not involving grief or helplessness. :wink:

You mean the one that applies to places, such as countries and cities? It would be pretty interesting to see a mud where each player was a country rather than a creature, but as far as I'm aware that's not the case for Runter's mud.

David Haley said:
(Maybe you think the examples are somehow restricting what the definitions can be applied to…?)

Could you give me an example of the word "devastate" being used to refer to physical damage to an individual person (outside of Diku)?


"Even after treatment her body was already devastated by cancer. She will die soon."
Sounds like she needs some mood elevators. Her emotional state is killing her. ;)
12 Jun, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 43rd comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
"Even after treatment her body was already devastated by cancer. She will die soon."

Well, I look forward to seeing the rest of your combat messages!
12 Jun, 2009, Zeno wrote in the 44th comment:
Votes: 0
elanthis said:
KaVir, you mentioned that younger players like seeing the bigger numbers – I'm interested in hearing your evidence on that.


http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/20...

:P
12 Jun, 2009, Ssolvarain wrote in the 45th comment:
Votes: 0
AO had it set up sort of nice. Numbers eventually got things inflated to the point of stupidity, but the numbers were manageable in the first few years. Requires a lot of math (or at least a good calculator) to do some things like making/equipping implants, but that was part of the charm.

Though, people who research and define the calculations of game mechanics should be kicked upside the head. Optimization ruins games.
12 Jun, 2009, Kline wrote in the 46th comment:
Votes: 0
Ssolvarain said:
Though, people who research and define the calculations of game mechanics should be kicked upside the head. Optimization ruins games.


I actually stumbled on an old WoW forums thread about someone saying "I hate min/maxers, you ruin WoW!". Well, no, optimization doesn't ruin games unless you let it. You're playing. It's your <free time/monthly subscription/connection/character/etc>, play however makes YOU happy, and just ignore what the next guy is doing. If crunching formulas to "be the best" isn't what makes it fun for you, then don't do it, but also please don't say people who DO enjoy that are "ruining" things.
12 Jun, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 47th comment:
Votes: 0
Ssolvarain said:
Optimization ruins games.

Only indirectly. Optimisation reveals design flaws, and design flaws can ruin games if exploited and not fixed.

If your game has lots of design flaws, and your players never report them, then that's when you run into trouble.
12 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 48th comment:
Votes: 0
All games are about optimization to some extent: you want there to be good and bad decisions, if anything to allow any form of strategy. The kind of optimization that you don't want is when some group finds actual flaws in the design, as KaVir said.
12 Jun, 2009, elanthis wrote in the 49th comment:
Votes: 0
There is a clear difference between having two character building choices to make where one is always better than the other and two choices where each has its pros and cons with each having times its better and times its worse.

A game that gives the player the option between being Teh Suckz0rz and being Teh l337n355 is a broken game design. It may not always be spelled out that way, of course, or it may only be certain complex combinations of choices that lead up to something that is hands down worse than another set of options. If being an ice-specialized wizard means you do less damage and have less power than a fire-specialized wizard then the design is broken, or at least in need of some rebalancing. Put simply, a min-maxer should not be able to create a better character than someone who's just making choices based on how fun he believes the options are. Certainly the fire wizard might be better in some areas of the game than the ice wizard, but the reverse will also be true. Additionally, the places where the fire wizard is better shouldn't have any better loot or XP or quests than the places the ice wizard is better.

Actually achieving that balance in an many RPG-ish game systems is damn hard, maybe impossible on a large scale, but that's what should be strived for. If option A is measurably worse than option B, then either even out the options or just remove the choice entirely. A player shouldn't have to metagame to compete.
12 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 50th comment:
Votes: 0
elanthis said:
Put simply, a min-maxer should not be able to create a better character than someone who's just making choices based on how fun he believes the options are.

I heartily disagree with this statement. The logical conclusion of your argument is that essentially random choices should yield a character just as powerful as choices made very deliberately, which strikes me as a far more broken game design. There's a difference between extreme min-maxing that tweaks things to the "basis point" (0.01 of a percent point) level, and making a coherent set of choices.

Surely, somebody who adds a single point to ten kinds of elemental magic will be less powerful than somebody who adds all of the points to a single one: it's very hard to justify that the first character should be equally able to function in the world on average as the latter. Surely you agree that some level of specialization is helpful to game design, which implies naturally that some choices can be worse than others.

Things are broken if one specialty always beats another specialty, yes. But it doesn't follow that all possible choices should be equally viable (viable in the sense of having a fair share of ups and downs, of course).
12 Jun, 2009, Runter wrote in the 51st comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
elanthis said:
Put simply, a min-maxer should not be able to create a better character than someone who's just making choices based on how fun he believes the options are.

I heartily disagree with this statement. The logical conclusion of your argument is that essentially random choices should yield a character just as powerful as choices made very deliberately, which strikes me as a far more broken game design. There's a difference between extreme min-maxing that tweaks things to the "basis point" (0.01 of a percent point) level, and making a coherent set of choices.

Surely, somebody who adds a single point to ten kinds of elemental magic will be less powerful than somebody who adds all of the points to a single one: it's very hard to justify that the first character should be equally able to function in the world on average as the latter. Surely you agree that some level of specialization is helpful to game design, which implies naturally that some choices can be worse than others.

Things are broken if one specialty always beats another specialty, yes. But it doesn't follow that all possible choices should be equally viable (viable in the sense of having a fair share of ups and downs, of course).


I agree. Also, I think it's important to distinguish between PVE and PVP design. It's potential they are one in the same but remember. Many gamers love the camaraderie of working together. Sometimes this creates separate classes of classes that shouldn't be compared by fighting each other exclusively. (or at all in some cases?)
12 Jun, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 52nd comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
elanthis said:
Put simply, a min-maxer should not be able to create a better character than someone who's just making choices based on how fun he believes the options are.

I heartily disagree with this statement. The logical conclusion of your argument is that essentially random choices should yield a character just as powerful as choices made very deliberately, which strikes me as a far more broken game design. There's a difference between extreme min-maxing that tweaks things to the "basis point" (0.01 of a percent point) level, and making a coherent set of choices.


Elanthis's comment reminded me of another of my pet peeves…muds where each race is particularly good for one class, so that dwarves make the best fighters (and the best fighters are all dwarves), elves make the best mages, halflings the best thieves, etc. In that respect I do agree that every possible combination of race and class should be equally viable. But I think that's perhaps more to do with strongly coupled race/class combinations effectively making the distinction between race and class redundant, which strikes me as wasteful from a design perspective (you might as well not bother adding races at all, and instead just tack their bonuses onto the classes).

But when you get down to the low-level choices, there's just no way you can make every combination equally viable - and nor should you. To give a very simple example…if Bubba puts all his skill points into axes, and then insists on always fighting with a sword and shield, what can you really do about it? Does he really have a valid complaint when Boffo (who also uses a sword and shield, but who has also invested in the appropriate skills for them) usually beats him? Should you force him to use an axe instead?

I once had a player who ignored everyone's suggestions when he designed his character, and ended up with no real defensive capabilities. He died a lot, then ranted than I was "punishing" him because he wasn't playing the mud "my" way.

I try to ensure that every ability is worthwhile, but it's really up to the players to work out which combinations of abilities work well together. Character design is a big part of the game, and although I do provide suggestions for players who are just getting started, most of the more experienced players prefer experimenting with their own setups.
13 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 53rd comment:
Votes: 0
One of my problems with character choices affecting "end-game" strength too significantly is that early choices, made when inexperienced, can have too much of an impact. Not knowing about some trick can lead to a character who will never have as many HP as another. One way to alleviate this problem (of how deeply and permanently choices affect the character) is to make things more transient: allow many paths to be followed, and maybe even allow transferring points from one place to another. Perhaps you learn a new skill and, while neglecting others during the learning, you forget them a little. This allows people to explore a little while keeping their character (to which they might be quite attached).
13 Jun, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 54th comment:
Votes: 0
I don't think it matters much whether numbers are big or small.
Although I would not use fractions nor change scale in the presentation to the players.
13 Jun, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 55th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
elanthis said:
Put simply, a min-maxer should not be able to create a better character than someone who's just making choices based on how fun he believes the options are.

I heartily disagree with this statement. The logical conclusion of your argument is that essentially random choices should yield a character just as powerful as choices made very deliberately, which strikes me as a far more broken game design.

I also agree with David, though I'll allow there's perhaps a larger market for a "fun" game.

For better or worse, my game definitely favors the player who makes smart choices. And yes, and experienced player on his fifth character will whomp a newbie. But the same is true of chess, so I don't see it as 'flawed design'.

I also share Kavir's pet peeve regarding races / classes, so I added 'race' to the skill table in const.c. A Dragon Witch will be better at scrying than a Dragon Warrior, which assumes a Witch would have better training, but neither will match a Faerie or Sprite, who have an innate advantage at magic. And a Faerie Warrior who insists on trying make Strength a priority will learn (I hope) that he can never match a much larger Dragon, so the answer is to focus on Dexterity.
13 Jun, 2009, flumpy wrote in the 56th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
elanthis said:
Put simply, a min-maxer should not be able to create a better character than someone who's just making choices based on how fun he believes the options are.

I heartily disagree with this statement. The logical conclusion of your argument is that essentially random choices should yield a character just as powerful as choices made very deliberately, which strikes me as a far more broken game design.



I hate games that can give you an advantage by knowing how to add the numbers up, and make choices solely based on them. I prefer games where you are rewarded for "playing the game" and that can be anything within the goals of that game.

For example, in a pk mud, you should be rewarded for player killing in innovative ways.

Another example is when my mud Nanvaent introduced a necromancer character. The necro required "blood" to survive, and if you ran out of blood you died, simple as that. However as a consequence when you were at full power with 5 skeleton warriors, two mummies, and a magical shield you were a formidable opponent. It made you keep playing and killing. You still had to quest and other stuff, but the impetus with other races was you could just stop and hang around forever chatting and not really playing.

Suffice to say, it was a very very exciting character to play.

Forget numbers. Concentrate getting players playing the game, and have great goals for each race.
13 Jun, 2009, Runter wrote in the 57th comment:
Votes: 0
flumpy said:
David Haley said:
elanthis said:
Put simply, a min-maxer should not be able to create a better character than someone who's just making choices based on how fun he believes the options are.

I heartily disagree with this statement. The logical conclusion of your argument is that essentially random choices should yield a character just as powerful as choices made very deliberately, which strikes me as a far more broken game design.


I hate games that can give you an advantage by knowing how to add the numbers up, and make choices solely based on them. I prefer games where you are rewarded for "playing the game" and that can be anything within the goals of that game.

For example, in a pk mud, you should be rewarded for player killing in innovative ways.

Another example is when my mud Nanvaent introduced a necromancer character. The necro required "blood" to survive, and if you ran out of blood you died, simple as that. However as a consequence when you were at full power with 5 skeleton warriors, two mummies, and a magical shield you were a formidable opponent. It made you keep playing and killing. You still had to quest and other stuff, but the impetus with other races was you could just stop and hang around forever chatting and not really playing.

Suffice to say, it was a very very exciting character to play.

Forget numbers. Concentrate getting players playing the game, and have great goals for each race.


Lol, well, "adding up the numbers" equates to being able to figure out which talents/skills/build best suits your needs to make a successful character.
I want to play a game where smart choices when building my character are rewarded more than dumb ones.

Which reminds me of something I hate when games do. Hiding numbers from players.
For example, if the description of a skill is "Increases the rate at which your attacks may deal critical damage."
Which makes it just a guess at how effective it actual is without empirical testing. (Which you can bet someone will do.)
It should actually say if it's 5% or 10% or 15%. I think sometimes developers hide the numbers out of some type of fear
of people exploiting legitimate skill combinations. Sounds like a design flaw to me. :)
13 Jun, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 58th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
One of my problems with character choices affecting "end-game" strength too significantly is that early choices, made when inexperienced, can have too much of an impact.

Also a fair point - however I take your "transferring points" idea to the extreme, allowing players to freely change everything other than their name and class. This means that as long as the classes are kept on-par with each other, any impact will only last for as long as it takes the player to discover a better solution. I actually had an experienced player thank me when I nerfed the setup he was using, as he said he was bored of it, but had felt obliged to use it because it was so effective! After the nerf he redesigned his character around a new concept.

flumpy said:
I hate games that can give you an advantage by knowing how to add the numbers up, and make choices solely based on them. I prefer games where you are rewarded for "playing the game" and that can be anything within the goals of that game.

If the gameplay is based on numbers (particularly if there are a lot of coded mechanics, such as combat, which utilise character attributes), then knowing how to add them up and make choices based on them is "playing the game".
13 Jun, 2009, flumpy wrote in the 59th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
flumpy said:
I hate games that can give you an advantage by knowing how to add the numbers up, and make choices solely based on them. I prefer games where you are rewarded for "playing the game" and that can be anything within the goals of that game.

If the gameplay is based on numbers (particularly if there are a lot of coded mechanics, such as combat, which utilise character attributes), then knowing how to add them up and make choices based on them is "playing the game".


no its part of the game. It is not playing the game at all.

That's what I was trying to get across.
13 Jun, 2009, Runter wrote in the 60th comment:
Votes: 0
flumpy said:
KaVir said:
flumpy said:
I hate games that can give you an advantage by knowing how to add the numbers up, and make choices solely based on them. I prefer games where you are rewarded for "playing the game" and that can be anything within the goals of that game.

If the gameplay is based on numbers (particularly if there are a lot of coded mechanics, such as combat, which utilise character attributes), then knowing how to add them up and make choices based on them is "playing the game".


no its part of the game. It is not playing the game at all.

That's what I was trying to get across.


I disagree. If you don't want people to be able to make coherent choices then don't let them make choices at all. If "playing the game" is the application after the fact. Then just make everyone "play the game" with the same characters, or randomly assigned attributes. But if your contention is people should be able to make choices only when all choices are equal, that's just silly. Firstly, it's not possible. And secondly, it wouldn't be fun even if it was.
40.0/213