On Jun 13, 7:18 am, "AngleWyrm" <anglew...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Russ Whiteman" <russ...@[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.
Ok, here's an example of a damage model that
uses a lot of stats
average damage=
(max 0,
((max((minimum chance to hit),
min((maximum chance to hit),
(base % to hit for class and level)+
(agility bonus)+
(equipment hit bonus))))*
((average weapon damage)+
(strength bonus)+
(equipment damage bonus)+
((critical %)*
(average critical damage)))*
(100% -
(****eld block %)+
(enemy agility bonus)+
(enemy equipment block bonus)))-
((enemy armour absorption)+
(enemy constitution bonus)))
And of course a lot of them are limited,
the ****eld block % might typically range
from 0% (for no ****eld) to 25% (tower ****eld).
Simply multiplying stats is over-simplistic
at best, unless you have a specific game in
mind that actually simply multiplies the whole
whack together.
> 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.
Bull. This simplification merely serves to make your
argument appear valid.
> 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.
A lot of games have a tendency to follow the D&D
model as a base for doing things which was never
really connected well to any form of reality.
So, Ok, over the course of the month to two years
that pass in the typical adventure game, I suppose
I could suddenly forget how to use an axe in order
to become a better negotiator.
There are alternates out there, the C&S book rules
didn't have much variation in hp as you gained levels,
you started of with, say 50, and at a really high level
you might reach 57.
As for experience, both Dungeon Siege and The Elder Scrolls
series have a better model, where skill improvements increase
the most in areas where you've actually been using them.
Not perfect by any means, but better than improving at lock
pick because you've defeated hordes of rats.
But I'm wandering off a bit here. Even assuming every
word you've said is gospel, how does it connect to improving
game balance? How does pointing at a curve and chanting
"Ohhh, game balance!" do anything?
---
Geoff
|
