[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Comments on CMA 2.6

[Christian Knoke <ChrisK@xxxxxxxx>]

Am Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2001 12:35 schrieb Raahul Kumar:
> --- Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > No why should it? Which one should CMA use if you have two
> > > > combinations which only differ in food. It chooses the one with
> > > > the bigger food value.
> > >
> > > You won't like the answer: It should choose the one with the
> > > lower value and leave the better tile for another city.
>
> I must have been asleep. Why should the CMA leave the better tile for
> another city? At this stage we do not know if there is even another
> city. If I missing some prior details set me straight.

The player may not want to get the maximum availlable, e.g. food,
when he doesn't want his city to grow, he decides to grow later
(by rapture) or because the city size is 8 and there is no aqueduct.
In these cases he may want to have some good food tiles availlable
for other cities.

>
> > I have never thought about this. A very good argument. I will
> > probably implement a weight of 0.

Thinking about it, I'm not sure if this is sufficient: the CMA
may decide to use the good tiles nevertheless? 

> >
> > > A ratio 2:3 will give you the same result as 3:4 or 4:5, if all
> > > other stats are zero. I think this is more transparent for the
> > > player.
> >
> > I don't think so. In my solution 2:3 would yield the same as 4:6 or
> > 6:9. Does anybody have a third opinion?
>
> Raimar is obviously correct. In fact a ration of 3:4 or 4:5 is 0.75
> and 0.8 respectively. They're not even the same as each other.

Well, you missed the point, that there is a logarithmic scale. So this
is about a comfortable user interface.

With my suggestion you can have less steps (six) within the slider, and
a finer adjustment at the same time.

Christian

-- 
* Christian Knoke                           +49 4852 92248 *
* D-25541 Brunsbuettel                  Wurtleutetweute 49 *
* * * * * * * * *  Ceterum censeo Microsoft esse dividendum.