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.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.
Battle simulation
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.
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.
Re: Battle simulation
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!
Look, ma... four combat bouts!
-
- Space Kraken
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am
Re: Battle simulation
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.
Re: Battle simulation
I agree with Ophiuchus.
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.
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.
-
- Space Kraken
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am
Re: Battle simulation
I guess Oberlus has never heard of Chess. Anyway again the point of mentioning RNG was its effects on simulation.
-
- Juggernaut
- Posts: 854
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:15 pm
Re: Battle simulation
What? You deleted the part that showed it was NOT.LienRag wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:52 amNon-sequitur.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?
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.Pre-battle calculations are for the player, not the Emperor, so it should never have an in-game price.
Re: Battle simulation
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.
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.
-
- Juggernaut
- Posts: 854
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:15 pm
Re: Battle simulation
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.
-
- Space Kraken
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am
Re: Battle simulation
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
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
Re: Battle simulation
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" ?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.
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 ?
-
- Juggernaut
- Posts: 854
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:15 pm
Re: Battle simulation
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.LienRag wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 1:10 pmNot 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" ?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.
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) ?