Tweet
Richard:
You seem to be confusing "knowledge level", which is something we Made Up, with what comes out in terms of effectiveness. The effectiveness of computers is vastly greater, by factors of billions or more, that of early computers. As you point out further down, there's nothing inconsistent in the formalism with doing things the way I proposed. It just means that some parameters need to exceed ranges which you seem to have had in mind but never stated. So it is perfectly possible to say both of the things that I quoted and be completely consistent as far as far as I know. I'll admit my approach might have been bad design, I claim no lock on wisdom in that area.
I think your notion of knowledge in Clash must be flawed in a fundamental sense, since your knowledge vs effectiveness formula implies that the computer industry has created vast amounts of knowledge, equivalent to something like a tech level of 0 through 300 in the space of 50 years. It is the fact that advances in the computer area achieve vast leverage through physical scaling laws that computers are so much improved. I don't think there's any way that you can claim that the "knowledge" in the computer manufacturing industry currently is more than the sum total of all other knowledge in all other areas (with perhaps a few exceptions) from 5000 B.C. which is what your statements imply to me. Computers are cool, I love them and the Internet. Without them this project would not be possible in its present form. But more knowledge than Everything Else??? Your approach may be ok for a game, but I caution you to avoid taking it too seriously when mapping it to the real world.
I just took this admittedly pedantic excursion because I thought some of these ideas might come in handy in looking at the model. Your criticisms of requiring h and potentially other values that are way out of the "normal" range are certainly legitimate. Because you're the guy that came up with the model, and especially because you and LGJ seem to agree on this, I have no problem with trying it your way first. If it works great and the players don't have any problem with it, I'll be sorry I wasted all the time on this concept
. So let's go ahead and try it in the way that you have in mind. I freely admit that having knowledge levels in sync throughout the game was somewhat unrealistic. However, I believe that you need to make a lot of decisions that cut corners in the absolute truths in order to make an engaging game. Quite simply that was what I was trying to do. I'm still not necessarily convinced that my approach is wrong, but we need to move forward on this and your way certainly has some advantages as you point out
[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited March 07, 2000).]
quote: How can you say both of these things? The only way they could both be true is if you believe that today's computers are only eight times as good as ENIAC. |
You seem to be confusing "knowledge level", which is something we Made Up, with what comes out in terms of effectiveness. The effectiveness of computers is vastly greater, by factors of billions or more, that of early computers. As you point out further down, there's nothing inconsistent in the formalism with doing things the way I proposed. It just means that some parameters need to exceed ranges which you seem to have had in mind but never stated. So it is perfectly possible to say both of the things that I quoted and be completely consistent as far as far as I know. I'll admit my approach might have been bad design, I claim no lock on wisdom in that area.
| quote: "Knowledge" is not an arbitrary amount. It is a very real quantity... |
I think your notion of knowledge in Clash must be flawed in a fundamental sense, since your knowledge vs effectiveness formula implies that the computer industry has created vast amounts of knowledge, equivalent to something like a tech level of 0 through 300 in the space of 50 years. It is the fact that advances in the computer area achieve vast leverage through physical scaling laws that computers are so much improved. I don't think there's any way that you can claim that the "knowledge" in the computer manufacturing industry currently is more than the sum total of all other knowledge in all other areas (with perhaps a few exceptions) from 5000 B.C. which is what your statements imply to me. Computers are cool, I love them and the Internet. Without them this project would not be possible in its present form. But more knowledge than Everything Else??? Your approach may be ok for a game, but I caution you to avoid taking it too seriously when mapping it to the real world.
I just took this admittedly pedantic excursion because I thought some of these ideas might come in handy in looking at the model. Your criticisms of requiring h and potentially other values that are way out of the "normal" range are certainly legitimate. Because you're the guy that came up with the model, and especially because you and LGJ seem to agree on this, I have no problem with trying it your way first. If it works great and the players don't have any problem with it, I'll be sorry I wasted all the time on this concept
. So let's go ahead and try it in the way that you have in mind. I freely admit that having knowledge levels in sync throughout the game was somewhat unrealistic. However, I believe that you need to make a lot of decisions that cut corners in the absolute truths in order to make an engaging game. Quite simply that was what I was trying to do. I'm still not necessarily convinced that my approach is wrong, but we need to move forward on this and your way certainly has some advantages as you point out[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited March 07, 2000).]
Comment