Level vs Depth Measurement

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Egavactip
    Swordsman
    • Mar 2012
    • 442

    Level vs Depth Measurement

    Is there some practical reason why this game uses two separate ways (level # and depth in feet) to measure where one is in the game?

    So far, I haven't noticed any practical reason.

    Couldn't this be streamlined?
  • Derakon
    Prophet
    • Dec 2009
    • 9022

    #2
    Depth in feet is better for flavor, but there's no real reason to use it otherwise. Still, flavor is not to be discounted.

    If there are places in-game where numerical level is used instead of depth in feet, that should probably be rectified. In discussions about the game on the forums, of course, anything goes.

    Comment

    • Narvius
      Knight
      • Dec 2007
      • 589

      #3
      And it helps mental acuity to fluently translate between two different systems of measurement, even if it's just multiplying and dividing by 50 :P
      If you can convincingly pretend you're crazy, you probably are.

      Comment

      • Egavactip
        Swordsman
        • Mar 2012
        • 442

        #4
        Originally posted by Derakon
        Depth in feet is better for flavor, but there's no real reason to use it otherwise. Still, flavor is not to be discounted.

        If there are places in-game where numerical level is used instead of depth in feet, that should probably be rectified. In discussions about the game on the forums, of course, anything goes.
        There are, like recall memory, but I would prefer that depth in feet be eliminated.

        Comment

        • Derakon
          Prophet
          • Dec 2009
          • 9022

          #5
          What do you have against the depth in feet? Would you rather use meters instead? Some variants do. Or is it the fact that it's measured at all (and thus you have to apply a scaling factor to get the "actual" level) that bugs you?

          Comment

          • Egavactip
            Swordsman
            • Mar 2012
            • 442

            #6
            Originally posted by Derakon
            What do you have against the depth in feet? Would you rather use meters instead? Some variants do. Or is it the fact that it's measured at all (and thus you have to apply a scaling factor to get the "actual" level) that bugs you?
            The amount of feet or meters or fathoms is pretty irrelevant to the game; the only thing that is actually important in a game sense is the dungeon level. Including depth in feet as well seems like a fin on a car.

            Comment

            • Derakon
              Prophet
              • Dec 2009
              • 9022

              #7
              Originally posted by Egavactip
              The amount of feet or meters or fathoms is pretty irrelevant to the game; the only thing that is actually important in a game sense is the dungeon level. Including depth in feet as well seems like a fin on a car.
              I.e. pretty and stylish but functionally useless?

              Flavor is important even if it has no mechanical impact on the game.

              Comment

              • Egavactip
                Swordsman
                • Mar 2012
                • 442

                #8
                Originally posted by Derakon
                I.e. pretty and stylish but functionally useless?

                Flavor is important even if it has no mechanical impact on the game.
                In this case, get rid of the pretty and stylish and you will have it exactly.

                Comment

                • buzzkill
                  Prophet
                  • May 2008
                  • 2939

                  #9
                  The other problem with depth in feet is that it doesn't quite make spacial sense. Certainly there are monsters that exceed 50' in height. Are we to assume that they are crouched, or are only fighting their upper body while the rest resides on the level(s) below.
                  www.mediafire.com/buzzkill - Get your 32x32 tiles here. UT32 now compatible Ironband and Quickband 9/6/2012.
                  My banding life on Buzzkill's ladder.

                  Comment

                  • hugorune
                    Rookie
                    • May 2008
                    • 12

                    #10
                    Originally posted by buzzkill
                    The other problem with depth in feet is that it doesn't quite make spacial sense. Certainly there are monsters that exceed 50' in height. Are we to assume that they are crouched, or are only fighting their upper body while the rest resides on the level(s) below.
                    At some point we remember this is just a game so if there are occasional inconsistencies, it doesn't really matter all that much. Angband was never really designed to be realistic. Is that a cop-out? Yeah.

                    As for depth in feet, leave it in. Some of us grew up playing Moria and like some of the flavour remaining. For those who prefer the simplicity of a level, they can change the option easily.

                    Comment

                    • HallucinationMushroom
                      Knight
                      • Apr 2007
                      • 785

                      #11
                      I prefer feet because it makes me feel more immersed in the game and conveys the exact same information. Dropping down to 1250' sounds more exciting to me than saying, hey, I'm heading down to level 25. But, to each their own and I see your point. Perhaps feet vs. level is too mundane to get worked up over, but most of the things that grabbed me and hooked me on roguelikes were the flavors. I number crunch more than I'm immersed nowadays, not to be hypocritical, but there was once upon a time when the idea of longswords, oil lanterns and a mahagony staff meant more to me than 2d5, 4500 light and un'id staff #4 does now. I guess what I'm trying to say is let the gamer become jaded in his own time... it'll come soon enough!
                      You are on something strange

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      😀
                      😂
                      🥰
                      😘
                      🤢
                      😎
                      😞
                      😡
                      👍
                      👎