Bay 12 Games Forum

Avoid facts but vaguely sound like you use them. Make unsupportable claims and when held accountable for their lack of evidence or given real world counter-examples, switch to rhetoric about morality and big government controlling everything. Create an ideal of freedom divorced from the reality, argue in terms of black and white, and don't let the conversation dwell on the consequences that arise out of your economic system.

Some common examples:
Make a universal claim that regulation stifles economic growth without showing how.
"If you let Big Government provide for you, you allow them to control you!"
Tell them that customers will always hold businesses accountable. Note: never mention how inconsistent this populist method is in reality, even combined with regulation
Paint everyone who wouldn't benefit under Capitalism as either lazy or stupid and undeserving of a happy life.

With these simple tips, you too can argue like your everyday fiscal conservative! Remember: the key is in extrapolating universalism from specific examples. Absolutist thinking is your friend.

On one hand, this sounds good. On the other hand, the system is abstract for a reason. For instance, if I just use swords (strength) and light armour (speed), does that mean my Endurance should literally never be able to go up? That would be a tad silly, right? The governing attributes, in my opinion, can only really weight attribute gains in certain directions, but aren't able to accomplish the task of determining them entirely. Otherwise, you get weird scenarios like the one I just mentioned, largely because each skill only has a single related attribute. Then, of course, you have something like Luck, which nothing is explicitly based on and is enough of an abstract roleplaying character thing that I can't even see a way to represent gain through usage.

Right now I'm using the nGCD mod which does something like Sordid is proposing. It doesn't tie Attributes to a single skill however, and instead each skill contributes a certain amount towards several attributes. Leveling is done automatically and avoids the gamey vanilla leveling system so that it's easier to remain immersed in the game experience.

EDIT: nGCD's skill influence chart

How about the fact that there is no class system.

Besides the major attribute and birthsign selection, did classes have any real effect on the player besides make certain skills increase faster and determine which skills leveled up your character?

A real perk system instead of the 25 skill milestones (which every character could obtain) may provide more "class" differentiation than Oblivion's class system.

The only thing DF really needs to break into mainstream markets is basic 3D or artful 2D graphics and an interface overhaul that makes accessing the game's many Fortress/Adventurer options as well as information quick and relatively painless.

With those things, even in the state it's in now DF could probably see a huge boost in public interest... which is probably why those things should wait a bit until a lot more of the gameplay meat is implemented and the wave of newcomers will be completely stunned by what DF has managed to accomplish. Dwarf Fortress is a pioneer of emergent gameplay and I don't doubt for a second that it could revolutionize the games industry if released properly.

You know why spears went away in Oblivion? Because they're useless and nobody likes them. Face it, 99.9% of players outfit their character with a sword. The blunt weapons skill is useless for the same reason, and if Bethsoft are getting rid of it in favor of something actually useful, then I say that's a good thing. See, nobody ever uses maces. Therefore the character is not skilled with them, and therefore if there ever comes a situation in which using a mace would be advantageous the player still won't use one because their character sucks with them.

If your argument is that Bethesda failed to implement weapons in a way that made them constantly useful but different, and that they should remove the weapon options outright because players would always choose one weapon over the others, then I suggest you re-examine where the problem lies. There is no inherent failure in the spear concept that demands its removal and perhaps if Bethesda's design team had implemented true variation in weaponry then their game's combat wouldn't be as bland as it turned out to be.

I would almost agree with you on language skills if they couldn't be used to guide the player's exploration progress in the game. However, to do those skills justice there would have to be A LOT of content, so I can see why it makes more sense to cut them outright for most AAA games that suffer from strict deadlines. Failing to implement an interesting diversity in combat choices however brings about a state of unfun, which is exactly what games cannot afford to be.

Skyrim is shaping up to be a further inbred member of the Elder Scrolls family, and I'm quickly losing interest.

The water loss was due to our Water Turrets.

And no, not so much a spike as what we've been dealing with for the past few days 
It's actually lower than the previous wave.

Wooden Theatre's zombie attack by day:
Day 14 - 1053   
Day 15 - 1354   
Day 16 - 1493   
Day 17 - 1769   
Day 18 - 1945   
Day 19 - 2208   
Day 20 - 2699   
Day 21 - 2606   
Day 22 - 3224   
Day 23 - 3850   
Day 24 - 3770
Day 25 - (4154 - 4523)

Trying to create a new word to describe every single possible analogue state of condition of belief would be absurd though.  There are some specific states that do need their own words though.  Agnosticism, Atheism, Theism, and Irreligion are certainly needed.  The various subgroupings of these groups and others like them cross each other from time to time, just like descriptions of any other social phenomenae.  How many different words for friend do you have?  How fluid are those definitions?  Do people ever change from what you consider one type of friend to another?

Language always changes definitions, though I find your version lacking in usefulness as it isn't particularly relevant to the modern world where most nonbelievers would fall under your umbrella of agnosticism. 'Strong Atheist' is usually used to describe the position of 100% certainty there is no form of deity, and the closest real example of that I've seen is from Ignosticism which takes issue with the idea behind divinity itself (or related concepts such as infinite power outside of a causal universe) as not being meaningful.

As these discussions usually focus on whether one believes in a deity of some form or not, I find it better to set the basic view points as Atheist vs. Theist and then delve into the nuances from there.