Major Release 04MAY

GM Stormcrow wrote:  ii) some slightly onanistic version of what some players would wish their score to represent

jameswherever wrote: HonoredMule wrote:  Trade 900 x for 1000 y (a resource of equivalent value), and get score of 1000 * (1000-900 / 1000) = 100;  The other party, trading 1000 y for 900 x gets score of 900 * (900-1000 / 1000) < 0 = 0; First thing, I'm afraid you have your maths wrong. I don't want to split hairs (though will), but 1000*(1000-900/1000) does not equal 100 (though I can see what you are trying to say - you need some more brackets in there - technically speaking this equation is equal to 999100). Anyway, if I understand what I think you were meaning to convey, (and I may be mistaken), you appear to be multiplying by 1000 and then dividing by it which doesn't really move things on. So yes, of course 1000-900=100. A proper discussion for this should be denoted algebraically other wise things will get very confusing (I'm sure it's absolutely crystal clear so far!) Secondly, since your second equation results in a value < 0, this should equate to a negative score. Not 0.

Ok, first, yes I did forget a set of brackets, but yes the value would be 100 when they are inserted.
1000*((1000-900)/1000) => 1000 * (100/1000) => 1000 * .1 => 100

Second, I already clearly showed in my notation that the second value would be less than zero.  I also described why the result should still be 0 "...a ratio to resources gained vs resources lost, capped between 0 and 1..."
max((900-1000)/1000, 0) => max(-.1, 0) => 0

Trading more resources for less has contextual benefit, but that's not an easy thing to measure.  If you have a practical algorithm for accurately weighing contextual benefit in all it's complex nuances, then I'm all ears.

As for the rest, I'm sorry you don't agree with me, but maybe you can do a better job of explaining how showing that you frequently juggle expensive resources via trade will not make people want to blockade you to intercept those resources.

I'm all for non-military aspects of the game, but nature will balance itself and always involve military to some degree.  No one will be truly exempt, unless it be by very brilliant diplomatic maneuvering which likely pigeonholes the player into a very specific and permanent role.

Well thank you for clearing that one up Stormcrow. I shall have to drop it into casual conversation at the next opportunity.

HonoredMule wrote:   Ok, first, yes I did forget a set of brackets, but yes the value would be 100 when they are inserted. 1000*((1000-900)/1000) => 1000 * (100/1000) => 1000 * .1 => 100

Hmm, okay.

I've just drunk a bottle of wine so am currently unable to deal with the intracies of later arguments but just need to clear up a point that I feel sufficiently intact to tackle (don't worry, I'll come back to the others later). Yes the value is equal to 100, but you are still multiplying and then dividing by 1000. This is pointless unless the value 1000 in each instance has been derived from two separate places. i.e. if the equation were formed under different circumstances the two '1000' values would/could be different (am I making sense here?! I doubt it).

Anyway, if you can express your proposition algebraically we can remove all of this confusion. I think I'm going to spend a little time working on this and I will come back with something as soon as I have it.

On the secondly point, I understand your notion of capping the modifier between 0 and 1 but can not see a logical reason for doing so - it's pretty arbitrary really. Hence my comment.

Well, it's past my bed time so I'm going to hit the sack. Back tomorrow.

Yours respectfully, sincerely and most honourably,

James

'I weep for you,'the Walrus said:
'I deeply sympathize.'
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,

I am serious.  I am not cross.  See demonstrative smiley.

(demonstrative smiley:  )

QED


EDIT: added "QED"


Edited by HonoredMule - 05 May 2010 at 01:07