Menu
▾
▴
#3122 aptitude scores, make higher = better
I guess this is fairly minor. But what's the point of having a low aptitude score mean better aptitude? Isn't that less intuitive? It makes people switch to bad/good instead of high/low.
Is this just to make the code easier? It seems like at minimum the game could just display them to the user in an inverted fashion relative to 100 (e.g. show 90 as 110, or however the math works).
Sorry if this is some silly obvious thing that gets asked a lot. I didn't find it in the tracker search though.
Or actually it the most general way would probably be to display aptitude as just a modifer from zero. +10, -50, etc. That would make those tables a little easier to glance through. (For me, anyway.)
Multiply the inverse by 1000 and display that.
50 -> 20
100 -> 10
200 -> 5
Reduces the numbers and makes it linear!
My brain hates me. Replace "linear" with "go in the direction you would expect."
I thought that at first too, but it's easier when you think of it as the percentage of experience you'd need to spend relative to another species. For example, if a new human character needed to gain 100 experience to reach second level (with 100 experience aptitude), a new demigod character (160 experience aptitude) would require 160 experience to reach the same point.
Why aren't Inv and Evo also normalized to 100? It seems like you could do so, just by increasing the gain amount by 33%.
Anyway, do you think that 100-centered scale is easier than seeing bonuses and minuses? Like, that demigod equivalently gets -38% experience (160 vs. 100). A dwarf has 66% better armour skill for the same points. (60 vs. 100)
Correct me if my math is on crack.
Or maybe somebody doesn't like negative numbers in which case the demigod's exp aptitude would be 62.5, human would be 100. Mtn. Dwarf armour aptitude would be 166. At least then low would be bad and high would be good.
For the record, the plan is to get rid of the numbers entirely, instead using adjectives like "easy" and "fiendishly difficult". We might even get around to this in time for 0.7. No, that's not a typo. :)
First, this is a very minor issue. Second, using the numbers as now is actually good because it's in line with how xp and skills work. Lastly, what jpeg said. Closing.