Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jonathan S. Fox]

They don't call the Court House the "Hall of Ultimate Judgment" for nothing in C+ society.

...which I believe checks for a capital offense and then gives a chance of 100% (C+), 33% (C), 50% (M), 20% (L) or 0% (L+) chance of setting deathpenalty to true (1 is true).

It is 100%, 66%, 50%, 20%, 0% actually.

Rafal99 is correct.

LCSrandom(3) is pick a random number from 0 to 2. Anything that isn't 0 is true. Thus, 67% chance of death penalty.

LCSrandom(2) is pick a random number from 0 to 1. 1 is true, 0 is false. 50% chance of death penalty.

!LCSrandom(5) is pick a random number from 0 to 4. Then apply a logical NOT to it, so if it's true, make it false, if it's false, make it true. 1 to 4 are all true, while only 0 is false, thus, 20% chance that the NOT results in a true value, so 20% chance of death penalty.

[LiteralKa]

They don't call the Court House the "Hall of Ultimate Judgment" for nothing in C+ society. ;)

...which I believe checks for a capital offense and then gives a chance of 100% (C+), 33% (C), 50% (M), 20% (L) or 0% (L+) chance of setting deathpenalty to true (1 is true).

It is 100%, 66%, 50%, 20%, 0% actually.

Rafal99 is correct.

LCSrandom(3) is pick a random number from 0 to 2. Anything that isn't 0 is true. Thus, 67% chance of death penalty.

LCSrandom(2) is pick a random number from 0 to 1. 1 is true, 0 is false. 50% chance of death penalty.

!LCSrandom(5) is pick a random number from 0 to 4. Then apply a logical NOT to it, so if it's true, make it false, if it's false, make it true. 1 to 4 are all true, while only 0 is false, thus, 20% chance that the NOT results in a true value, so 20% chance of death penalty.

As you will come to learn, I hate arbitrary numbers, so I'll be working on a new algorithm. :D

[Servant Corps]

I love random numbers. They are easier to understand.

[LiteralKa]

I love random numbers. They are easier to understand.

Hey! They won't be random! They'll make sense! (To me, and mathematically)

[Servant Corps]

The more variables you add in, the harder it would be for an average person to understand if he'll get the death penalty. A coin flip is far easier.

[LiteralKa]

The more variables you add in, the harder it would be for an average person to understand if he'll get the death penalty. A coin flip is far easier.

The average person is a MODERATE they cannot be expected to (fully) understand such LIBERAL ideas.

[EuchreJack]

The more variables you add in, the harder it would be for an average person to understand if he'll get the death penalty. A coin flip is far easier.

The average person is a MODERATE they cannot be expected to (fully) understand such LIBERAL ideas.

Besides, only a CONSERVATIVE would leave decisions of life-or-death up to a coin-toss!

Whereas a ARCH-CONSERVATIVE would just pick death...

[LiteralKa]

The more variables you add in, the harder it would be for an average person to understand if he'll get the death penalty. A coin flip is far easier.

The average person is a MODERATE they cannot be expected to (fully) understand such LIBERAL ideas.

Besides, only a CONSERVATIVE would leave decisions of life-or-death up to a coin-toss!

Whereas a ARCH-CONSERVATIVE would just pick death...

Besides, I don't want it to be easy. I *like* algorithms and *hate* arbitrary numbers.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I like things to be intuitive and understandable for the player. As long as the replacement formula maintains that, that's fine. But the holy grail of a game mechanic is the player's experience, not programming elegance. An equation that outputs results based on an intelligent algorithm that nobody knows about may as well not exist, if the results aren't any more balanced and fun than they were when playing with magic numbers and dice.

In a game, anything that the player doesn't know about effectively didn't happen, and anything the player does know about effectively did happen -- regardless of the reality of the situation. Artificial intelligence that is dumb as a rock, telegraphs its punches, and has exploitable and predictable reactions can seem much smarter and more fun to play against than a clever but reticent AI that wins with subtlety the player will never appreciate.

Replacing magic numbers with a crafted algorithm is fine, but keep in mind that the change should always serve the player first and foremost. The magic numbers in place were chosen to serve gameplay; any replacement formula must do so at least as well, else it serves no purpose.

[LiteralKa]

I like things to be intuitive and understandable for the player. As long as the replacement formula maintains that, that's fine. But the holy grail of a game mechanic is the player's experience, not programming elegance. An equation that outputs results based on an intelligent algorithm that nobody knows about may as well not exist, if the results aren't any more balanced and fun than they were when playing with magic numbers and dice.

In a game, anything that the player doesn't know about effectively didn't happen, and anything the player does know about effectively did happen -- regardless of the reality of the situation. Artificial intelligence that is dumb as a rock, telegraphs its punches, and has exploitable and predictable reactions can seem much smarter and more fun to play against than a clever but reticent AI that wins with subtlety the player will never appreciate.

Replacing magic numbers with a crafted algorithm is fine, but keep in mind that the change should always serve the player first and foremost. The magic numbers in place were chosen to serve gameplay; any replacement formula must do so at least as well, else it serves no purpose.

Well, it's not like they're looking at the code *all* that often. I'll just make sure to document the algorithm and it's logic very well.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

That's my point. What's important isn't the expression of the system to other programmers, but the way the mechanics are expressed to the player. You can document the code very well and write a clever algorithm, but the results must still be targeting an improved experience for the person playing the game, or there's no point. The most beautiful algorithm in the world is useless to users who aren't looking at the code if the actual gameplay that results isn't any better for it.

[LiteralKa]

That's my point. What's important isn't the expression of the system to other programmers, but the way the mechanics are expressed to the player. You can document the code very well and write a clever algorithm, but the results must still be targeting an improved experience for the person playing the game, or there's no point. The most beautiful algorithm in the world is useless to users who aren't looking at the code if the actual gameplay that results isn't any better for it.

I know, I was just elaborating. <3