Battle simulation

Describe your experience with the latest version of FreeOrion to help us improve it.

Moderator: Oberlus

Forum rules
Always mention the exact version of FreeOrion you are testing.

When reporting an issue regarding the AI, if possible provide the relevant AI log file and a save game file that demonstrates the issue.
Message
Author
Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Battle simulation

#31 Post by Ophiuchus »

truepurple wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 8:06 pm How much randomness is in the game? And do we really need this much randomness? If we cut down on the randomness, would that help calculate simulation results? I think it might because the more randomness, the more times the simulation needs to be run to get a reasonably reliable average of the odds.
I think the level of randomness is fine. I think nobody else in the forum thinks it is a problem. So I'll leave the topic.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

truepurple
Space Kraken
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am

Re: Battle simulation

#32 Post by truepurple »

Ophiuchus wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:30 am I think the level of randomness is fine. I think nobody else in the forum thinks it is a problem. So I'll leave the topic.
You very well miss the point. I wasn't making a value judgement on how much randomness is in the game and whether that much is good or not. I was just making the point that if there is any issue with the sim running taking up too much resources, then reducing randomness would address that by requiring less runs.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Battle simulation

#33 Post by Oberlus »

I agree with Ophiuchus.
LienRag wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 10:37 pm
Oberlus wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 9:06 pm Randomness is necessary for fun.
No it isn't.
The way the combat system works in FO, I believe also that the randomness is more interesting that removing it.
But deterministic systems could be fun too, and truepurple is right that there are "levels" of randomness.
Let me rephrase what I meant in a more correct way:

Some randomness is necessary for extra fun.
Imagine playing poker when you know in advance the cards that each player will get on each hand. It could be fun the same that puzzles or chess are fun, but it would have less fun, it would be less thrilling. The same applies to combats in FreeOrion: if one knows in advance the result of a combat, the losing part will flee if there are better chances later or concede otherwise, and the winning part will just attack. There will be less doubts on what will do the other part, removing thrill from the game.

Regarding degrees of randomness, it is obvious that there can be degrees of randomness. If someone would like to get to the point and say how current combat system could have less randomness but still have randomness, instead of stating obvious generalities, that could help advance this discussion that otherwise is pointless.

truepurple
Space Kraken
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am

Re: Battle simulation

#34 Post by truepurple »

I guess Oberlus has never heard of Chess. Anyway again the point of mentioning RNG was its effects on simulation.

defaultuser
Juggernaut
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:15 pm

Re: Battle simulation

#35 Post by defaultuser »

LienRag wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:52 am
defaultuser wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 11:43 pm You don't think a fleet commander or strategist back at HQ would be interested in battle simulation results?
Non-sequitur.
What? You deleted the part that showed it was NOT.
Pre-battle calculations are for the player, not the Emperor, so it should never have an in-game price.
You can disagree with my point without misstating what the point is. If you want to show how my point is a non-sequitur to that, I'd be fascinated to see it, because it would probably be a misunderstanding somewhere.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Battle simulation

#36 Post by LienRag »

Simulation is not something that helps the Emperor in the sense that it only allows to automatize a task that can be done manually by the player.
It saves time for the player, it doesn't change anything for the balance of the game between Emperors.

Creating in-game costs for a battle simulator would be akin to creating in-game costs for good UI (like rotation, or hotkeys, or whatever).
If we can better the UI (including simulation) we should do it and give access to it to everyone, not put an in-game barrier entry to it.

defaultuser
Juggernaut
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:15 pm

Re: Battle simulation

#37 Post by defaultuser »

I guess I don't agree with that if combat simulation is a skill, like I mentioned. The Empire would have people that make estimates of combat results and give it to the interested parties. The player is the representative of the Empire as far as making decisions.

truepurple
Space Kraken
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am

Re: Battle simulation

#38 Post by truepurple »

LR is right. The battle simulation may make sense thematically in game, but its really just another way to aid the player in interfacing with the game, thus should be outside of any issues of "realism".

Besides, the persons who would need it most would be the weaker players, AKA the people who'd struggle most with getting the tech to unlock it. The irony alone would be momentarily interesting :P

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Battle simulation

#39 Post by LienRag »

defaultuser wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 11:58 pm I guess I don't agree with that if combat simulation is a skill, like I mentioned.
Not to be belligerent nor insulting, but what is it that you don't understand in "only allows to automatize a task that can be done manually by the player" ?

Or what do you disagree with in that sentence, either ?

If the rules of combat are publicly known (which they should be, especially in a FOSS game) then what an in-game simulator can do that a player can't do manually (though tediously) ?

In what way reducing tediousness should be an in-game skill rather than the general objective of the game design ?

defaultuser
Juggernaut
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:15 pm

Re: Battle simulation

#40 Post by defaultuser »

LienRag wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 1:10 pm
defaultuser wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 11:58 pm I guess I don't agree with that if combat simulation is a skill, like I mentioned.
Not to be belligerent nor insulting, but what is it that you don't understand in "only allows to automatize a task that can be done manually by the player" ?

Or what do you disagree with in that sentence, either ?

If the rules of combat are publicly known (which they should be, especially in a FOSS game) then what an in-game simulator can do that a player can't do manually (though tediously) ?
Sorry, but I'm not going to be continuing in any threads started by that guy. I realize it's your point now, but still.

Post Reply