Shattered Kingdoms

Are you trying to troll? Do you really think that a page that contains information such as draws inspiration from table-top games such as Dungeons and Dragons, games that usually have character sheets with exact numbers which aren't hidden in game calculations, is the coder's intent even though Dulrik just agreed that his intention is that numbers should be obscured?

I just responded to what seemed to be a trolling attempt with a simple answer.

If it was confusing, however, let me put it this way, then. Dulrik has a vision for the game. He's also the only developer. As a result, the way that the game currently stands, code-wise, is guaranteed to be a pretty accurate depiction of what Dulrik wants. If you want to ask questions about specific things and see if he responds, go ahead, but the fact that Dulrik's already quoted that he prefers the mud to be about roleplaying with actual words rather than people running around in-game screaming "I AM A GIANT I HAVE 25 STRENGTH AND A 10 DAMAGE ENCHANTED AXE HAHAHAHA" should be plenty for this thread.

So you were trying to be a smart arse. Alright.



Perfectly reasonable. So why isn't there a development roadmap somewhere that clarifies exactly what he wants? From an outsider's point of view sometimes it seems like there isn't one and decisions are made on the spot based on vague personal preferences which makes player input redundant. Having a clear development roadmap somewhere would cut down all the can we have X type of questions by simply pointing at it.



Which you've already seen happen but apparently it doesn't count now. I could pull countless quotes from logs like "Five runes of speed and two accuracy", "twenty willpower runes should be enough", "have you maxed strength?" etc. OOC meta-game discussions in-game are supposed to be policed as breaking the RP rule. When you see people in other muds talk about items and numbers and game mechanics openly it's because they're allowed to do it in no-rp muds, not because they have the numbers at hand.

But whatever, it's not as if the point here is words versus numbers which you seem to either avoid or fail to grasp. The point is intentional obscurity and not having a clear analogy between words and numbers. Moderate isn't two, it's two or three. Great is four or five. Since the game is solidly based on number calculations, the only thing accomplished by this is to force people to work out the hidden numbers by roundabout ways and black box reverse engineering. And then make them talk about it in thinly veiled ways since these numbers are pretty important in the game world whether you're meant to use them or not.

I personally want to see the principles on which player input is evaluated and added to the roadmap. I really appreciate the phrase Shattered Kingdoms has players, not 'customers' but if the player has to jump through hoops of unknown size to provide feedback, then being a customer gives you more options. Being able to see the design philosophy and the development roadmap saves both Dulrik's and my time from Christmass stocking mentalities and answering similar questions over and over respectively.

Consider the other side of the development road map: it builds up expectation for a system, and only causes complaints to shift from the uncertainty of future development to the choice of path of future development. No matter what path is taken, people are going to find something to complain about.

The upside of taking the present route is that players don't receive an implicit promise from a development map that can later be broken, delayed, or subvert expectation. I don't speak for anyone but me (obviously), but it seems that the damage done by not having one is preferred to the damage done by having one. I know it's frustrating, but please take the time to consider the frustrations that could be caused by what you suggest. The path of least evil is often the one that needs to be chosen: the evil still exists.

To further add to the positivity, an innumerable quantity of good ideas erupt from "can we have X" conversations. The byproduct of our path is that these conversations exist. From an objective community perspective, the existence of these conversations is a good thing, and any excuse to make them happen is good. I won't outline all the reasons why, but I hope I don't have to. Quantifying and categorizing the strength of different types of player input seems to lead toward that input being specialized and much less organic. Just talk it out, and if it's not in the cards it's not in the cards: we're willing to listen as long as you're willing to as well. We're all in this together.

To the topic at hand: yes, conversations exist that are very thinly veiled methods of communicating numbers. However, a lot of things in the game are thinly covered by in-game atmosphere. The important thing is that they are still covered and inside that 4th wall of immersion. As soon as numbers show up, that veil disappears. It's a thin and wispy thing to grasp on to, but it is there for a reason. It's better than conversations consisting of "Well this is +2 fort and +5 will." I'm not saying by much, but enough so that it's worth keeping the system as-is (in my opinion).

This is part of what makes Shattered Kingdoms so newbie unfriendly (a steep learning curve because the game mechanics are intentionally obfuscated and not intuitive) and also one of the main reason that several third party websites exist to provide the "numbers" that players want and/or need to make tactical decisions in a game where "roleplay and tactics collide".

Just sayin'.

You're not lying. It's one of those "in for an inch, in for a mile" situations, unfortunately. Using words will always be inherently unintuitive compared to raw numbers. But strip out the words for numbers, and within six months the game'll be nothing but raw numbers in IC conversations for minmaxers. I feel like that's not the best thing to walk into an inn as a newb and see for an RP mud. Neither of the two are newbie friendly for what SK is trying to be, but one of them will make a subset of people log out instantly, whereas the other won't.

I don't disagree.

I'm just not convinced there is any difference between identify revealing that an item "moderately increases willpower" vs "has three runes of willpower" since players already use that lingo to discuss items and enchants in the game.

I must have gotten lost in Edoras' and Erik's love affair, and not read some of the posts correctly.

Yes, I agree. The "recent" addition of numbers in the status lends itself towards the possibility of this change becoming a reality if a compelling enough argument is made.

It's so easy to actively determine the amount of enchants on an item, and that the barrier of knowledge only exists for new players - not for all players. I like active movement towards an "all" or "none" line for knowledge - I agree that arbitrary lines only serve to hurt noobs. That same reasoning may be why we're allowed to see exactly what status we are, and I think that reasoning is the best shot at getting this change.

Realistically, it's only adding two words: one to replace the second level of moderate and one for the second level of greatly. I'm a fan of "easy to grasp, hard to master" - and the easier enchants (or any mechanic) are to grasp, the better. It doesn't make mastery of a valid enchant balance any easier, and doesn't serve to diminish immersion in the world.

Those are my two cents, at least.

Oh man, the days when you could forget what level you were because it just said 'Master'.

Good times.