Abilities are fun, numbers are not

I hear where you are coming from.  My take on this is that the numbers can be exciting if they are meaningfully deployed and have other factors (like AI) designed around them.  If you're going to have a race that are 'superwarriors', it's got to HURT to fight them.  If you have a race of super-creative technologists, they have to reliably have GREAT tech.  Races that breed prolifically need to really cover the galaxy.  In other words, the number have to matter.  Ideally, the +10% to this-or-that should be there but the gestalt the player should come away with is, 'Gah, it's the @$%# race, I hate fighting them'.

In fantasy, this would translate to dwarves really having armor worth salivating over, etc...  Not every game per se, but the overall feel of the game needs cement the realm's reputation as the most armored, most magical, most cunning, etc.

These a very good point IMO. When you come down to it numbers are what drive the gaming system. That said what makes it interesting is when you get the feel for what you are achieving over that solid value.

It's nice to get the idea of ability or enhancement by reading the name and brief description. When the numbers are well balanced a player should be able to chose abilities that suit their playing style and get the results that at least achieve somewhat what they're hoping for. That said, also be able to have an idea of what they're defending against.

If one was looking for an ability such as Cleave it be as simple as defining that it strike another opponent on the death of a previous within the same time slice. In turn finding Greater Cleave would suggest just that. In my example with Cleave, it would be nice to that improving slashing weapons would improve the ability, and no numbers are required for that.

What I find is beneficially from having the numbers available is to have an idea how to maximize the use of or defense against abilities. Numbers allow a player to somewhat justify the resources (research, material, time, etc.) spent for the value of the improvement.

I hope i'm not intruding here... My name is Jerry, I'm from Argentina (sorry about the bad spelling) and after reading the forum since a long time, I've decided to join because of this topic.

First of all I understand the opinion of Krouv. A lot of players hate numbers... Sometimes I found myself tired of maths in games, specially in games that take a while to play (like most Turn Strategy Games) But let me remind you that these games are based on numbers for a number of reasons.

Please, think about the origin of turn based strategy games and ask yourself about how they work. Actually, think about the project that started a while ago in the forum and you will find the answer a lot faster (I'm talking about the Elemental: Pen & Paper). The orgigin of TBSG are Board Games and Wargames. They are swarming with numbers, and even when a lot of them could be anoying to play because of the complexity of their systems, there is this other great number of them that are really simple to play, and they use numbers too. Why is that? Well, everyone knows the answer to 1+1, and also they know that 2 is bigger than 1. In other words, numbers let us compare, get to know how good are our little guys in the board (or on the screen) and also give us the idea of Control. We know how much, we know how many and speculate about those numbers. Its really hard to speculate about "good" and "very good" but in the end, "good" could be translated to 1 and "very good" to 2... you still have maths. Desguised, but they are still maths.

So, yes... if the system is anoyingly difficult, numbers can be awful. But, if the system is simple enough, numbers can be your biggest allys. This is a Strategy Game where you develop a serie of citys, a whole kingdom... using numbers instead of abilities let you know the income, the outcome, the spending and all that kind of things that make the whole "administration" easier.

On the second hand, abilites are really cool. I love when my civ can do something special that lets you "brake" the rules or go beyond. I think that everybody does, I mean, you are exceeding in something. But this should not be the replacement for numbers. If you get a few uses of a ability per game, then you can burn them too fast and then get frustrated and start a new game. If you save them for later and suddenly you win the game, you didn't get to use your abilities and... again, frustrated. Instead of placing limits, let the players get those abilites because of the numbers.

For example, your civ has a really big number in fighting, because that BIG number, you get a fighting ability (maybe you get to pick one from several choices) or a Research ability if your civ is very good at that. And that ability can recharge itself after several turns. In that way you can still use numbers, get abilities and by recharging them every once in a while, you are not placing limits to the player.

Well, thats my opinion, and I hope is well taken. Remember, abilities are great, but numbers can be great too if they not become repetitive and complex. They just give us some sense of proportion and reference. Without them, we can't figure out the system, and we lose control.

I just wonder about this...arent abilities not just numbers to ??

no matter if they are researched or specific by race, spells or update ?

lets say army A defends(10 def) army B attacks(10 atk): while army A has a comanding unit that has a ability that gives maybe an 10% aura bonus to defence and  the ruler is skilled in lets say protective earth magic and  casts a spell with a set  +5 bonus , while army B has maybe learned a custom ability by leveling up giving  armor piercing (halfs armor)...all this would be still numbers .

In Battel to me it would be still this: 10 armor + 1 armor (10%aura) +5 armor (spell) -8 armor (-50% skill oponent) = 8 def vs lets say 10 atk from the oponent ..you see it is still all numbers no matter what ability you mean

The same goes for terrain or even weather effects, its still numbers.

Honestly i like numbers no matter in what game; if its turn based i can calculate with time and on these calculations i put a strategie up, in a realtime game i wouldnt use some direct damage ability (numbers!)on a running enemy if i wouldnt predict it would finish him, in a rpg i wouldnt attack with a dagger with low stats vs a natural dragon 20 lvls higher and bigger armor.

If you really would want a random effect you need an ability like LUCK or randomness in a game that reduces damage or raises damage, a turn based strategie game like the Homm series had that allready ...still for the computer it is still numbers of when it triggers...just you just cant see it.

Something unique in this game will prolly be the spells..i doubt a souverain with  water magic has the same spells like one with earth magic no matter if its research or if they got spells  by quests....same goes for items (still both are updates of numbers).

Do it like me and just wait some more....there is spells,items etc to come , the game is far from set yet and you can watch the progress, you shouldnt hate the numbers in games you should love them and as more numbers there are as more you can varity in the way you want to play your game.

Just a quick take on my part. I'm not going to give tons of reasons but I wanted to add that I mostly agree with Ralf. I love numbers, I play strategy games, I play sim games (Think of Out of the Park Baseball, East Side Hockey Manager), I play RPGs and in each of em numbers play a big part of the fun for me. When you learn what they do and how to use them it just ends up making the game more fun and involed.

Admitedly I know that there's a limit to how much numbers there can to be in a game or it just bogs it down... But the most important part is simply how they are implemented, if they're well explained and meaningful.

Numbers rule!

*brings out the calc*

I much prefer having special abilities than raw numerical bonuses, but we mustn't forget than coding abilities is a lot more work (and prone to spaghetti code) than purely numerical effects. And I'm not only talking about the AI, but plugging the abilities into the diverse areas they can affect is hard work.

So I would suggest going for few, but well defined, abilities, and leaves the rest to numerical attributes. Those abilities should have effects that cannot be easily replaced by numerical bonuses.

Ok, this bugs me. Every time someone posts to have less numbers, and instead more meaningful capabilities / effects / whatever, someone says that under the covers it's all numbers.  That's roughly equivalent to saying food is just chemicals.  True, but not helpful. If you watch what the posters are saying, they're not saying that we shouldn't be presented with meaningful numerical information to make decisions with, but instead that discoveries, unit abilities, special events et. al. provide something meaningfully different.  

I own all of the GalCiv versions, and every once in a while I go back and try to play them.  And every time I fail.  Why? Because the entire research tree, and most of the special events are *boring*!  Yay!  I got another 5% to my lasers!  Oh, if I choose the evil option I get +10% bonus to soldiering (kudos to the choices and consequences though - that was a meaningful advance).  If you look at fun tech trees, you find that each discovery usually gives you something new. Spells in MoM were very different, in meaningful ways - in fact they were a pretty blatant ripoff from M:tG, and more power to them; using what works well is  often a good thing, especially if used in a new way. I seem to recall the tech trees in MOO/MOO2 to also give meaningfully differentiated capabilities, not just a +X%. In a way, unlocking a new discovery can be a real game reward - actual fun - and not just an incremental improvement that might help you very slightly.  In this, I'm very encouraged by what I've been seeing - entirely new categories are opened up when an Elemental tech is achieved - now you can mine, create leather armor types, etc.

Is it more work? Absolutely! Is a lot of the underpinnings just numbers? Sure. Is it *only* numbers?  Absolutely not!  It's also attributes that interact with targets in hopefully emergent ways.  Not to mention cool flavor text, different graphics, extra unit animations, and *additional tactical choices* - either due to an automatic or passive effect, or even a full-on new player-initiated menu option!  Does it create spaghetti code? Not if the developers are any good - and I haven't seen anything to indicate that they're not skilled professionals.

Effects aren't always numbers.

Invisibility doesn't rely on a number but on a boolean (you can/can't).

Abilities are more event driven. If there are enough event triggers throughout the game, abilities can be simple scripts which don't require vast hardware resources and keep the code clean (well cleaner).

edit: Whoop, it double posted!

Abilities are more event driven. If there are enough event triggers throughout the game, abilities can be simple scripts which don't require vast hardware resources and keep the code clean (well cleaner).

I agree in general with the OP. That is why I suggested (in the Abilities thread) elsewhere a series of "feat"-like abilities, which I also called "actions" or "moves" or "icons" (as represented on a radial choice menu for units), at the very least in addition to increased "attack" and "HP" values -- e.g., a unit with an attack rating of 5 might be able to perform a simple default attack on its foe, but with researching the right technologies, that unit might be able to unlock special "moves" from which it can choose, such as "bash" or "riposte" or "hamstring" etc. But that seemed to fall on deaf ears.

Too much individual unit complexity would be problematic for a 4X.  If it's just the channeler that becomes some weird freak of nature, it will look weird.  If it's not just the channeler, what sort of implementation are you using for all those extra moves?

Each one needs animated, massive work load increase if you have multiple skeletons.  Even if they ship with everything being human, that would butcher mod compatibility and add insane levels of work to get new skeletons in.

I do dislike having growth be entirely stat driven.  We have spells though, so I'm not real worried.

As of 0.264, I dislike the stat growth being level-driven. The stats we have so far are very simple and have very little meaning in such an incomplete environment. More than seeing spells 'balance' stats, I'd like to see levels ditched in favor of using experience to 'buy' stats, which could make choosing Essence vs. physical combat stats a really interesting core strategy decision.

p.s. Like you, I don't expect (or partcularly want) a complex character stat system in Elemental.

I disagree.

For one, I do not see implementation being hindered by explicit graphical representations, firstly because I do not think that each different type of action need be represented with an animation; in fact, I would be perfectly happy with only one or two animations, that is, no matter what type of attack is used, the skeleton still swings its sword (or whatever weapon is equipped), and if it is a defensive maneuver, it holds its weapon up parallel to the ground, or whatever. (For another reason, consider how much work has already gone into the skeleton animations on the cards alone, from what we can see, when the characters are equipped with items or strike poses.)

As to the implementations, I have sketched a few of them in the threads regarding channeler attributes, for example here, (mine is post #73, I do not know how to link to that) or you can check out my posts in RavenX's stickied Ideas thread, I do not wish to repeat them here.

The general overall argument I would, however, like to repeat here is short: With unit attributes restricted to HP, attack and defense, both combat and unit creation will become dangerously like GalCiv2: there will appear to be differences in the units, but they will be superficial. There will be so many interesting things that will be hard to implement without differentiated unit stats (in my thread to which I linked above, I included some "easy" examples from scouting, stealth, resistance, etc.). Finally, simpler unit stats, as those you seem to prefer, worked WONDERFULLY in games such as CivIV et al. -- yet almost all of those games in which those stats functioned fine, UNLIKE Elemental, flagged each of its units as a special TYPE of an individual unit and as a member of a unit CLASS, e.g. a "Maceman" is flagged as a "Maceman"-type and belongs to the class of "melee"; this allowed the game to functionalize strategic countering and balance, e.g. a "pikeman" gets bonuses vs. the class of "mounted", while a "maceman" might get bonuses vs. the class of "archery" and particular boni to the type "longbow". As we know, there will be no "macemen", no "knights", no "longbowmen" in Elemental; therefore, other mechanisms must be implemented, in my opinion, to avoid the exceptionally suboptimal combat and unit creation system in, for instance, GC2. That is the danger of Elemental's and GC2's open unit design system. Unit stats can help here, greatly, and for little "cost" -- if the mechanisms are already in place to calculate Sovereign stats, nothing need be added to calculate a unit's stat (except for more calculating power in turn resolution). If we cannot flag the units we create according to classes and subclasses with rules which govern these, then we need more interesting unit stats, or else the errors of GC2 will be repeated.