Your "study" makes the assumption that the product of all stats is
somehow meaningful in terms of game balance, and that all stats are
equally im****tant, and that maxing everything is the only valid "best".
That's one amazingly huge set of assumptions.
Sup****t that claim, and it -may- be worth paying attention to...until
that is done, it's just random noise.
AngleWyrm wrote:
> "Nathan Mates" <nathan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:fsSdnTAJaMKcNc3VnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <CYqdnbyEZ8ypPc3VnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
>> Here's the problem: you seem to think you've made some profound
>> insight. The rest of us are saying "if you get in the same timezone as
>> a point, make it." To me, your posts need a lot more thought before
>> they'll have any useful content.
>
> This study shows the effect of using more stats. We can see how quickly
the
> product drops away from max, as the number of stats increases. If the
stat
> average takes even a tiny step to the left, the product plummets.
> Also, as the number of stats increases, the product hangs around the
bottom
> until the very end. The situation devolves into a set of boolean
> maxed/not-maxed prerequisites, making the individual stat ranges rather
> pointless.
>
> So if many variables are desired, then it's probably best to just model
them
> as a set of boolean prerequisites. This eliminates the false sense of a
> range of values, for both the designer and the player.
>
> I would describe the previous paragraph as containing both a point, and
> useful content, the two metrics you proposed. However, since you didn't
pick
> up on it the first time through, I must ask you: (1) Why not? and (2)
> Anything you can think of that would have gotten you to see it better
the
> first time?
>
>
|
