[Rigelian]

Getting near time to put this one to bed (right before me)
But a couple of (quick) rebuttals:

Yes, and your view is counter to how it should work.

You know, that's dangerously close to an 'argument from authority'. See my post about Galileo in the 'Rating Fyron' thread..

(Re to-hit charts)I think that is a very, very bad idea. It makes things unnecessarily complicated, for no real gain.

I didn't think it was that bad! After all, as I said a lot of existing games work that way. In terms of complexity, players already look up and compare damage profiles by range for the weapons - why not an 'accuracy profile'. If nothing else, tell me why having (for example) a minimum range for missiles would be a bad idea.

Of course they are synonymous. But, there is no reason why probabilities can not be added.

If you apply a strict mathematical definition of probability there is a very good reason. It's wrong! But the driving factor here is what works best for the game, as you say. I don't think we are any closer to convincing each other though.

The point is that (in this example) the level 1 ECM is supposed to cancel out the level 1 CS, and vice versa. There is not supposed to be a net ECM bonus. To get this set up with multiplicative values is next to impossible when you take others nothing like what you were talking about, and can already be acheived. Set the first ranges to 0, and the missiles will not be launched at those ranges, but will be at the ranges where they have damage values. I know that you can do this with Direct Fire weapons, and it would make sense that it works with seekers too, though I have never tested that.

quote:

---

If you apply a strict mathematical definition of probability there is a very good reason. It's wrong! But the driving factor here is what works best for the game, as you say. I don't think we are any closer to convincing each other though.

Speaking strictly from pure mathematics, maybe. But this is more of a reality thing, and not theoretical mathematics.

That comes down to the original design for the game, on which topic I'm quite prepared to defer...to an argument from authority

Bah. As I already stated, arguments from authority do not apply to the game (except maybe if you are arguing with the game designer, but that is still stretching the argument from authority definition very, very far).

But - when I was arguing about edge effects at maximum weapons range, I was actually agreeing with your second point! You can go from 70% chance to hit at range 4 to 0% chance to hit at range 5... I wanted to express the chance to hit as a factor of actual range versus maximum range, so it would tail off more gradually.

Now this is different than what you have been saying before... but, consider that the maximum range is the range until the weapon dissipates (for an energy weapon, at any rate) so much that there is not enough energy to cause significant damage. So, it doesn't matter if you can hit them, if the weapon is no more powerful than a laser pen.

Why not simply have bonuses multiply and penalties divide?

So X% chance times 1.2 (+20%) sensor bonus, divided by 1.2 (+20%) ECM penalty = X% again.
No matter what X is.

Because that limits you to having only 2 bonuses. Or, you have to limit them to 1 of 2 categories that add together to get the multiplicative value. Which again, is more limiting than the current system. Also, what is 1.0 / 1.2? 0.833. Now, the 20% ECM penalty has dropped to 16.7% (or .167).

[ March 09, 2003, 01:38: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]