Re: Dimini****ng Returns in Game Engineering

"Russ Whiteman" <russw99@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:5Kp4k.3058$cW3.841@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

1). "The product of all stats"
This is somewhat of an exageration. All products of stats is more to the 
point. As in any time multiplication is used. And products are quite often

meaningful.

2). "That all stats are equally im****tant"
This is the primary reason for using a range that goes from 0 to 1. It can

be easily scaled to any desired range, and may be scaled differently for 
each variable. The result is still the same: All that has happened is that

the box is stretched/squished along one or more dimensions. The shape and 
pro****tions remain intact, relative to the newly distorted box. I should 
probably illustrate this point, because it's not obvious.

3)."That maxing everything out is the only 'best'"
Unfortunately, maxing everything out is often over-used. For instance,
tech 
trees are almost universally a 'bigger is better' affair. IMO that isn't 
necessarily true, and it would be great to have some better models. 
Character skill trees are another example where the 'bigger is better' 
philosophy is again out of it's element. It forces a character down a path

without the possibility of 'forgetting' a skill, in order to re-use the 
skill point elsewhere. So I agree that maxing everything out is not the
best 
solution to even some common situations.