[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Expirience points for units

["Dalibor Perković" <pdalibor@xxxxxx>]

No, I'm not crazy for replying my own mail, I just thought of some other 
stuff...


>another example:
>Again, mech.inf. vs. warriors :) The mech.inf. does something 
>really stupid and *almost* gets killed. But it manages somehow 
>to kill the warriors, but loses 90% HP in the process. 

When I think of it, my system enables a unit to even *lose* XP for such 
stupidity.


>Both these events are "lowly probable", but mine is a bit more 
>probable (mech wins). 

Maybe this sounds a bit rough. What I really meant is that my example has a
somewhat higher "statistical weight" (which is an exact mathematical quantity.
If you are mathematically inclined, you know what I mean). So, as a math 
quantity,
it should be considered :)

As for getting too much detailed, I think we should get as much as detailed
as possible while making rules, in order to make im as realistic as possible.
After that, we should make them as simple as possible to be playable. But those
two things don't exclude each other.

In the meantime I thought of another example. Suppose a unit defeats an opponent
having no losses. How come? Maybe they just got lucky, or maybe they are 
"talented".
(some people say they don't believe in luck, but I don't feel like discussing
it). Suppose they're talented. Shouldn't they gain expirience more quickly?
To put it in a different context, why punish such unit by giving it less XP
than to unit that did the same job and almost got killed in the process, only
because the other unit lost some HP?
When I think of it, I even start to believe that a unit should get more XP if
it loses *less* HP! It means that they already *are* more expirienced, or will
gain their exp more quickly, than those who lost half of their men performing
the *same* task...
      ?
     /|\                           Izitpajn
    /?|\?                       pdalibor@xxxxxx
      |

--
Besplatni e-mail - http://www.iskon.hr/mail/