[Torg] Why 0-21? Or why not?

[Chris]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jasyn Jones <jasynj at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 25, 2010, at 1:54 PM, Chris wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Jasyn Jones <jasynj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 24, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Chris wrote:
>
> > I was referring to the mention Dom made that he does not have any current
> cosm go above 22, which I think he said was the Star Sphere, though uses a
> 0-30 chart.  Dom's extends beyond for undiscovered cosms, or what have you,
> and
>
> Dom has never posted a Tech chart (or any chart at all), and if he has
> developed a 0-30 Tech chart, he hasn't mentioned it. So, unless you're
> talking about a Tech chart that has never been posted, you seem to be trying
> to directly compare the Space Gods on his Magic chart with the Space Gods on
> my Tech chart.
>
> This leads you to conclude "There's a lot of room above the Space Gods on
> his Magic Chart, so there's little room on your Tech chart."  That's not a
> valid comparison, it's apples to oranges.
>
> There is a valid comparison, based on publicly available charts- the
> Official Torg Charts vs my Tech chart.



Perhaps the number 22 did come from his discussion on Magic, and the Star
Sphere wasn't mentioned, but I would assume Star Sphere as a result of it
being the highest Tech, and there was this in his first post on this thread:

My
reworking is based on a 0-30 scale primarily based on the idea that I
want to keep that quantitative connection, and that the places where I
changed things are either not being used (such as the values above 20,
which are not used by any cosm) or are individual benchmarks that I
believe needed to be moved to a different place (such as impressed
spells being Magic 13 as opposed to 17).

This was in the Tech thread, as I scrolled up to get at it without leaving
this thread. But my point is that both yours and his, seem to be condensing
values to around the same amount of in-use-by-cosm levels, which can make
sense using torg's habit of logarithmic increases, which means as we get to
the levels about say 7 or 8, things increase faster, and the change between
one number and the next can be more drastic, which given the way every other
torg value is logarithmic, I have always assumed the axioms were the same.
Now, having copied and pasted the above statement of his, that there is
nothing above 20 in use by any cosm according to his chart, and there is
nothing in use above 19 on your chart. Functionally, there is one
difference, and that is how much room for expansion there is into further
possibilities. Aside from that, they are the same, in my opinion. You've
both condensed things down, and then you cut off the extra, leaving just
enough to tie the end of the bag, and Dom chose to tie off the bag, and
leave enough to carry it more easily. Which one is better? Neither one.
Because as I said, functionally, they are the same. And maybe I'm the only
one that sees it this way. So all of this arguing over 21 vs 30 is really an
argument over 19 vs 20. And can everyone agree, that this is a silly
argument to have?

Everything after what I've quoted from you above is pointless banter in my
opinion, that reads like you are trying to discredit my ability to be part
of a meaningful discussion. I have not spoken ill against any chart, save
the 0-10 scale and provided an outside, hopefully unbiased view of other
statements being made, be it qualitative vs quantitative, or what have you.
You and Dom are obviously attached to your own systems/redesigns of the
charts, and will defend your own as you see fit. However, what I see is a
lot of defensive posturing, and attacks on peoples' ability to reason. I've
explained that I view the axiom system the same as the other torg values,
and how they all lie on a logarithmic scale, that increases faster and
faster as it grows, which would explain, perhaps, why there was so many
axiom entries for the stone age, as either a) it was long, or b) the
progress made on the logarithmic values provided were not sufficient to move
out of that age quickly, though as time went on, progress became faster and
faster, with larger steps being made in shorter time. You are making
assumptions about my position that cannot be reached based on what I've
claimed. My claim was that the more gaps you remove, the less useful your
charts become as they serve a purpose. I have also claimed that you and Dom
have removed a similar amount of gaps from the chart. Beyond this, I have
stated that according to Dom's posting, either in this thread, or Magic,
that there are no cosms presently using any values above what would
basically, if not entirely, fit within your own scale, irrespective of the
specifics, using only the values. And what you can conclude from this is
that Dom has left more room for advancement than you have, and that is all.
I have not said that yours or his is better, just what purpose I believe the
gaps between cosm ratings serve, and that the more gaps removed, the less
useful the ratings become to perform any kind of game related formulae on,
be it reconnection, or otherwise.

I am more than capable of forming my own arguments, and when I have a
concrete opinion to provide, it will be provided. If however, I am offering
commentary, and a third-party clarification, or acting as an uninvolved
individual asking for clarification, these should not be presumed to be
anything other than what they are. I am not designing a new chart, and do
not care to, but if you want to post yours and let others comment on it, and
they do, you should try not to take everything as a personal attack, or
because of that, think that people are making statements that they are not.
It causes problems for everyone because once you claim that someone said
something, it often becomes assumed that it is the case. I never said 8
steps above Star Sphere is good, I said it leaves more room for expansion
than your chart does, and other than that, they are basically the same. I
never said that getting rid of existing gaps is bad, I merely said that if
you get rid of too many, then you lose the purpose the chart originally
served. And as far as your 0-21 chart, and his 0-30 chart are concerned,
again, there is no difference, as you have removed roughly the same gaps,
and just made different upper limits beyond your condensed charts.

I really hope this will clarify anything that was said, and prevent future
assumptions about what anyone else has to say. This is why I ask questions
often, rather than jump to conclusions. But I would probably react just as
you seem to, if I had spent the time and effort creating something so
complex, only to feel like it is being attacked, whether it is or not is
irrelevant. Feeling it is would be enough to get defensive, and probably
cloud my vision. It's happened in plenty of other situations.

-chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.justintimeadventures.com/pipermail/torg/attachments/20100225/6d1fbed6/attachment.html>