(2-NS) Deterministic damage as an option

[CppMaster]

Rationale: Some players may prefer deterministic damage instead of a random damage.
Proposal: Give an advanced option to make damage deterministic. Disables by default.

 

[Stalker0]

Just to be extra specific, you are saying that the damage the combat calculator shows would be the EXACT damage dealt, with no variance.

 

[Tekamthi]

The proposal system should generally be for changes that you want to be part of the main mod, turned on by default.

There is probably not any randomness in the universe anyway, outside of the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus. Even then, its probably deterministic via quantum entanglement, though this has yet to be determined afaik. Whereas our universe is (almost) entirely deterministic, it follows that all civ computations are deterministic already, too ; what you really want is for them to be humanly predictable

 

[CppMaster]

Just to be extra specific, you are saying that the damage the combat calculator shows would be the EXACT damage dealt, with no variance.

Yes.

There is probably not any randomness in the universe anyway, outside of the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus. Even then, its probably deterministic via quantum entanglement, though this has yet to be determined afaik. Whereas our universe is (almost) entirely deterministic, it follows that all civ computations are deterministic already, too ; what you really want is for them to be humanly predictable

Sure, tell that to physicists that study quantum theories that they are all wrong

But anyway, if it cannot be predicted, like a number between 70 and 90 then it could be considered random, regardless of how it's actually calculated. It make no difference here.

 

[Stalker0]

But anyway, if it cannot be predicted, like a number between 70 and 90 then it could be considered random, regardless of how it's actually calculated. It make no difference here.

Yeah, the uncertainty principal of quantum mechanics tells us that certain information is unknowable past a degree of precision (the classic one being the combined knowledge of the momentum and position of a particle, the more accurately you know about its position the less you know about its momentum and vice versa). Which means for the purpose of calculations is random.

 

[Tekamthi]

I wouldn't play with this, but as proposed, wouldn't bother me to have it as advanced option. That said, I think for now devs have enough to worry about without getting into these 'off-by-default' implementations. Maybe try bringing it back when things settle down, if it doesn't work out this round.

While I don't wanna turn the randomness off, it would be nice to be able to see how much of the predicted damage is certain/uncertain in the pre-attack hover-over;

 

[CppMaster]

I wouldn't play with this, but as proposed, wouldn't bother me to have it as advanced option. That said, I think for now devs have enough to worry about without getting into these 'off-by-default' implementations. Maybe try bringing it back when things settle down, if it doesn't work out this round.

Even if it's passed, the devs themselves will decide even they will implement it, so we don't have to worry about it. The proposal is not a priority for sure.

 

[Legen]

While I don't wanna turn the randomness off, it would be nice to be able to see how much of the predicted damage is certain/uncertain in the pre-attack hover-over;

20%, both under and over the estimated damage. So, 30 estimated damage varies between 24 and 36.

 

[azum4roll]

It's already possible to modify it via SQL, so I don't see a point of making it an option.

 

[CppMaster]

It's already possible to modify it via SQL, so I don't see a point of making it an option.

So it's convenient and doesn't require knowledge about this. That's the point of advanced settings. Many of those could be done modifying SQL files, but it's still better to just check it in options.

 

[Recursive]

Timestamp post to arrange all the threads in a neat order.