Re: OT: Making a Game System (part 2)
 

thanks! :)

I do realize the degree to which the harmonic mean skews towards the smallest members of the set, and that is exactly my reason for using it; it creates a strong reverse salience. Reverse salience is where a single component of a system is impeding the performance of the entire system; the term originates from technology studies, where within a system some components are being developed very quickly, while others are allowed to lag behind, and despite all the advances in one technology, the overall system performance does not improved because of the reverse salience of other components in the system.

I liked the principle of harmonic means, and thought they fit a fighting system best. To my understanding, the idea of the harmean in a combat system like mine would be to say that "the percentage of 'attack' contributed by each variable is due to the degree of that variable's operation in the generation of 'attack'." This also means that variables can be weighted to change their degree of operation in attacking. I simply have to decide how much each variable contributes to it, and weight accordingly. Thus in melee, perception might be weighted less than strength and dexterity, for example.

Re: OT: Making a Game System (part 2)
 

this isn't true. it simply means that this character can't dump all points into using THAT ONE WEAPON while allowing the character to remain dumb as a box of rocks, oblivious as an Alzheimer's patient, and clumsy as a cow on rollerskates and still expect to use that weapon with any efficiency. It really blunts min-maxing that simpler systems cannot stop. Also, and this isn't explicitly in the system yet, but it will allow for the reality that knowing how to use weapons other than that of your specialty will actually improve your skill with your specialized weapon due to a cognitive process called synthesis. I actually read a lot about this while I was tooling through martial arts boards (people talking about improving their kendo or some other skill by learning to use a naginata or something).

also, specialization's downside being lack of diversity is a crock of **** in any system that doesn't penalize lack of diversity:
"yes, I do +23 damage, have +12 attack, and get 9 attacks per round with my longswords. but that's ALL I can do, and just think of all the stuff I'm missing out on doing... like... like... singing opera... and cooking... and writing poetry... Don't you see how my character suffers due to its extreme specialization. It's pure torture. But the world needs me, so I trudge on."

Re: OT: Making a Game System (part 2)
 

This has occured to me, but rather than have all these threat values, I was going to allow for skill in the two handed sword, or whatever weapon, simply to increase the weapons contribution to threat (or 'attack', I may end up calling it for simplicity). This can abstract how the wielder knows _how_ to wield the sword in what situation to extract more effectiveness from the weapon; this at the slight expense that there are some situations in which some weapons should genuinely have a higher or lower attack, depending on the environment and the exact nature of the target. Also, since the target has an independent 'defense' roll and armor value, the quality of the armor is in principle accountable for without needing ad hoc or special formulas.


No. actually spirit is primarily intended for a part of the magic system, and it will be necessary in this respect. However it is useful for vitality too, since 'fear' and 'morale' from dominions are rolled up in this vitality score. at the moment, it influences the initial amount of vitality. Of course, I wouldn't force a player to run away, but there are penalties for having low vitality that might be thought of as Fear, and when a player is getting low on vitality, they are quite likely to want to run away.

most of the stats you are pointing out have their initial considerations in the magic system, which is why they are necessary even if they play only an ancillary role in combat. However, the primary combat stats will play an ancillary role in magic. I like it that way and it helps contribute to my ideal behind using harmonic means (everything works best when in 'harmony'.) :)

psyche and spirit, or even psyche and cognizance might not seem that separate, but I believe they are. Spirit was originally conceived to represent "spirituality", something that psyche does not. think not of the priest, but of the tribal shaman, or maybe the Buddhist monk. Psyche is that mental strength and brass; I was thinking of the D&D psionics here, which is usually associated with 'intelligence', but I thought that was too blunt. For more 'real life psionics' I might imagine browbeaters and car salesmen, that's not charisma, they arn't charming you, they are just beating you down mentally until you give in; there's a lot of weak minded people out there so this works well. That doesn't take intelligence, it doesn't take spirit, it doesn't take charisma, it just takes mental strength and persistence; that's psyche. cognizance then is your ability to think, abstract, and synthesize; what we most often associate with intelligence.

of course, each stat has a little overlap with others, but that's OK and even desirable. what's important is that they have a well defined center that is necessary and cannot be captured in another stat. Of course, I could go so far as having 'slow twitch strength' and 'fast twitch strength' and such parsings like that too, but I don't think those two things are separate enough from each other that they can't reasonably be represented with just 'strength'.

Re: OT: Making a Game System (part 2)
 

Hmmm...
I don't know the details of the system you have in mind but lets just make one example.
Computer programming and talking have synergy effects like one who's good a memorizing vocabulary is good at memorizing commands. Likewise someone who's able to express exactly what he wants to say should also find it easier to program a computer. But a computer programmer needs mathematics, too, and computer knowledge.
So lets make the formula for programming skill with the harmonic mean and add the talking synergy.
programming=1/(1/talk+1/math+1/computer knowledge)

Average person:
talk=5
math=5
computer knowledge=5
The average persons programming skill is (1/5+1/5+1/5)¯¹*3 = 5
Single-minded computer genius:
talk=2
math=9
computer knowledge=10
His programming skill is (1/2+1/11+1/10)¯¹*3 = 4.2 - lesser than that of the average person allthough he has burned more points.
Balanced person:
talk=7
math=7
computer knowledge=7
programming skill: 7/3 = 7 - this is the min-maxed value you can't go higher with 21 points.

So every good programmer is also an above average speaker. This is in no way realistic. There's countless examples of people being good at one thing while lacking in other areas despite synergy effects - this is what makes individuality possible. It can't be encompassed with an harmonic mean as long as you want to have synergistic effects. With a harmonic mean whatever gives a bonus will also become a limiting factor.
You can certainly tweak that a bit but I'm quite sure you'll end up with that the balanced person is best at everything or so close to it that there is no point of building up strengths and weaknesses.

better formula (1/(talk*2)+1/math+1/computers)¯¹*3

average: 6
specialized: 6.3
balanced: 8.4

Then just penalize it. Get the +23 damage guy into a situation where his longsword is useless - for example grappling, a fight against a ghost, a karaoke contest.

Re: OT: Making a Game System (part 2)
 

I would say its writing, not talking, that is important for computer programming. And in reality every computer programmer is going to be an above average writer, mathmetician, and... computer programmer. Take the following examples:


Hello my name is Donald Knuth; not only am I quite likely the most noted figure in modern computer science, I have written about 15 MASSIVE books about it. My father owned a printing press and this had a HUGE impact on my skills with computers later in life. I've also written the de facto standard software for doing academic publishing, LaTeX.

Hello my name is Eric Raymond, I'm a hacker extraordinaire who has wrote a category killing mail client for Linux, as well as hacked on Linux, Nethack, and tons of other computer software. Most notably though, I've written the most famous books on modern hacking, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, and the Art of Unix Programming. Some English student didn't write those, I did. Lastly, according to me and other books such as "Rebel Code", it was the highly social nature of computer scientists over networks such as usenet that allowed Open Source Software to become a reality. In other words, computer scientists are really good at communicating.

Hello, we are Linux. According to Raymond, we represent the top 5% of computer programming talent in the world. One of the most notable correlations we have is the fact that Linux is one of the most well documented pieces of software in existence; could this be because computer hacking and writing skills are related?

Hello, I am the liberal university model. Virtually every university in the world follows this model. Even MIT, known for computer science stuff, has English, philosophy, and literature courses on par with their technical courses. This is because knowledge in these areas improves performance in technical areas. Only community colleges and trade schools do not offer such well rounded education, and consequently their product is ill-suited for the new technological economy.

Re: OT: Making a Game System (part 2)
 

Obviously, there is a point where creativity is required to tune the math to the appropriate point.

I'm going to assume here, that what you want Omni, when you think of "harmony", is a balance between diversity and specialization. So I think a good way to achieve this, is to look at how a character might develop, such as Illuminated One's calculations - and parse out typical scores based on 'single stat min-maxing' or 'across the board flat scores with purely harmonic means'. Then in comparing the numbers, alter the math so that the "peak" of a character's ability, falls somewhat in between these scenarios - a mathematical paradigm that rewards well thought out specialization AND diversity.

It would seem you want to do more to avoid having pure specializers than hindering a jack-of-all trades, but by adding bonuses in the appropriate points, you can reward someone for making a couple stats shine, while allowing them to not be utterly crippled if they are deficient in some area. The point being that a player can neglect some things as a matter of choice, because otherwise there is simply enforcement of pure diversity, and no direct reward for ever trying to excel in any one thing.

People are multifaceted, some facets are dull, some are sparkly, but no one facet makes you a god. ;)

Re: OT: Making a Game System (part 2)
 

Your assumption that you are trying to illustrate, seems to be that communicating with human beings and communicating with machines are inextricably interconnected. You may be correct to a certain degree, at a certain level of proficiency, however there is no clear absolute here. Most of the people whom I have known in my real life dealings, who were talented programmers, all happened to have trouble with people. But here is where your problem starts, you are trying to forge an immutable link between "writing", and "programming". I would argue that in this context, that there must then be an immutable link between "speaking", and "writing". Thus if the only way to have the best rating in programming, is to be an excellent writer, but the only way to excel in writing is to be a talented speaker, then speech becomes a necessity for programming skill.

The problem is that you are drawing a causal relationship from a circumstantial relationship. Perhaps what you are overlooking, is that while the most well known programmers happen to be good writers - it is because it is through that writing skill, that they become well known, more so than through their programming skill. There are droves of incredibly talented programmers out there, that you have no knowledge of (and who do not rise as high in power in a corporate world, usually), who are indeed very poor at dealing with people in any capacity.

Re: OT: Making a Game System (part 2)
 

Omni, allow me to retort...

Seriously though, from the method you are using to model calculations (largely in terms of reciprocals and products) the 'correct' mean to use would be the geometric. The harmonic mean is more properly used for data which represent ratios and rates of change of processes relative to some fixed, common unit.

'Reverse salience' is misleading. Reverse salient is a noun, referring to a particular weakness which holds back some process (specifically, holds back an armored column advance; the term is military in origin). If you wish to use a harmonic mean you are essentially telling players that their character is *weakened* by having even a single relevant attribute at a value less than any other.

Re: OT: Making a Game System (part 2)
 

Presumably one of the two people involved in the development of the Backus-Naur-Form? I would expect that everybody involved in computer science in academics must have learned about the BNF, and not only if your area of expertise is theoretical computer science or compiler construction. It's the same like everybody should know about Von Neumann. There are obviously a lot of people that did important little things who you might never have heard about, though.

Re: OT: Making a Game System (part 2)
 

Ok I see your point. I will consider the geometric mean then.