15 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 101st comment:
Votes: 0
elanthis said:
However, if the end-game monsters are all wearing magic-immune dragon-hide super armor, then the metal erosion effect of Acid Rain becomes useless, so the spell becomes a very obvious red herring compared to Fire Rain… but only if players actually know that the end-game monsters are immune to its special effect. A player who doesn't troll the forums and read up about all the stats and abilities of every monster in every area in the game to find out the best meta-strategy to being powerful may well end making a very logical selection of Acid Storm only to later find out he now has an underpowered spell and can't hope to compete in the rankings with the more lucky players and the meta-gamers who picked Fire Rain since those guys are getting an extra 25% damage output with their spell.

I don't disagree with this. It's dumb to put in choices that seem reasonable but actually aren't. I still think this is rather different from always equating fun choices with strategic choices. Of course, only providing strategic choices is a way to force the equation of these two things, or at least, by ensuring that all choices are strategic, the fun ones are also strategic.

elanthis said:
But Checkers doesn't eat up 60+ hours (or as with most MUDs/MMOs, many full weeks) of the player time just to find out that the move he made 40 turns ago is now screwing him over.

Substitute checkers for any game with long-reaching consequences, such as chess, Go, …

I admit that I suffered from a case of TLDR here, as I don't have time to reply to your post in full, however I suspect that really, we're not saying such different things. I might just have been reacting to what I thought was a somewhat extreme statement of position, that you have since clarified/nuanced quite a bit.
15 Jun, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 102nd comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
KaVir, what exactly are you trying to accomplish at this point?

I could ask you the same thing. You claimed something wasn't possible, and explicitly asked someone to prove otherwise. When someone did that, you insisted their proposal wasn't worth discussing because it was a contrived example. So then I described my real implementation, and you started wriggling like a worm on a hook. It is really so hard to just say "Oh, you're right, I hadn't thought of that"? Or even just not say anything at all?

Or to put it another way, why even bother discussing a subject you've already made up your mind about? Do you really think you're going to convince me that something isn't possible when I know that I've already designed and implemented it?
15 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 103rd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir, I chose my words carefully when I talked about weak and strong, and that distinction was apparently lost on you, and I'm not terribly sure it's worth time pursuing it. I'm tired of this pointless discussion so I won't talk about it further with you: as far as I'm concerned this is a useless tangent and uninteresting to the bigger question. :rolleyes: (Why do you ask me to say nothing at all while bombarding me with all these questions…?)

EDIT: just for the hell of it….. you didn't actually address my statement, because the examples thus far have not actually been about strength and so forth, but about simply different systems.
15 Jun, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 104th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
EDIT: just for the hell of it….. you didn't actually address my statement, because the examples thus far have not actually been about strength and so forth, but about simply different systems.


You stated "I find it difficult to believe that one could create a character weak in all aspects that somehow beats a character very strong in just one."

That is exactly what can be done in my mud. My design supports it. My implementation permits it. It is part of my game. So please stop telling me it's impossible.
15 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 105th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir, I don't think you actually read what I wrote. But ok, woohoo, you're right, may the angels sing your praises. Now can we finally get back on track?
15 Jun, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 106th comment:
Votes: 0
lol i already got 100 why u guise talkin
15 Jun, 2009, tphegley wrote in the 107th comment:
Votes: 0
With the gauntlets thrown down…we might see 200 Crat. You got a picture for that?
15 Jun, 2009, Runter wrote in the 108th comment:
Votes: 0
tphegley said:
With the gauntlets thrown down…we might see 200 Crat. You got a picture for that?


I'll contribute.
15 Jun, 2009, Wodan wrote in the 109th comment:
Votes: 0
why don't we just skip the posts and ask crat to post the 200 and 300 pictures anyway?
15 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 110th comment:
Votes: 0
Because it'd be less funny that way. :rolleyes:
15 Jun, 2009, Wodan wrote in the 111th comment:
Votes: 0
but this takes so long!
15 Jun, 2009, Dean wrote in the 112th comment:
Votes: 0
Aye, much more entertaining the hard way.
15 Jun, 2009, Wodan wrote in the 113th comment:
Votes: 0
what was this thread about anyway?
15 Jun, 2009, Dean wrote in the 114th comment:
Votes: 0
Discussing the pros and cons of using small or big numbers, as it were.
15 Jun, 2009, Wodan wrote in the 115th comment:
Votes: 0
i'd say use small numbers and print some extra 0s to make people feel better! :grinning:
15 Jun, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 116th comment:
Votes: 0
I detect the stinky fist of fascism creepin up yall. I'm afraid this thread
will smell the glove well before 200 GET :(

-Crat
15 Jun, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 117th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
I detect the stinky fist of fascism creepin up yall. I'm afraid this thread
will smell the glove well before 200 GET :(

-Crat

Huh? I think you've spent too much time sparring with Scandum. :)
15 Jun, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 118th comment:
Votes: 0
Wodan said:
i'd say use small numbers and print some extra 0s to make people feel better!


Good one! *high five Wodan*


My problem with small numbers is I need a magnifying glass.
15 Jun, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 119th comment:
Votes: 0
Speaking of numbers, where do you guys see numbers on the posts?
15 Jun, 2009, Davion wrote in the 120th comment:
Votes: 0
^
100.0/213