I agree with the iteration being a bad idea, it was a (too) primitive way to get mean and standard deviation of the combat results. I expect that there is also a nice & clean way to obtain the values using probability theory. The 'one standard deviation' you mentioned would get the values of a probability of 68,27 %, would this cover enough outlier?Xitax wrote:As to showing the span of results, iteration is a bad and costly model (in terms of cpu cycles), but a reasonable model would be to show the best and worse result within one standard deviation of the mean.
Xitax wrote:However having said that I am against it because it will clutter the GUI and I don't want any more stuff in there.
It wouldn't need to clutter the GUI, as it could e.g. be implemented by using some sort of color indication for the prediction mouse cursor and showing e.g. the best and worst expected result for the player of a certain probability only in the 'combat details' dialog. But this would most likely cause heated discussions on how the differences of the three results translates into a color indication in a meaningful way.
Instead i would really prefer the combat prediction mouse cursor to just also include the best and worst expected outcome (e.g. a number without box above and below each of the two prediction boxes, the numbers above containg the best, the numbers below the worst outcome for the player and of a certain probability). In my opinion this would be an intuitive and clean interface .
I also have no problem with the randomness, but i don't like having no indication of how 'stable' the predicted results are. And if i remember my PG days, for a newbie it was not only frustranting but even worse incomprehensible why the combat indicator showed a postive results, while in the real battle the troops would get slaughtered. And i am not talking about having forgotten the enemy unit being protected by artillery, but rather trying to understand how/in which amount the different factors (wheather, entrenchment, experience) influence a battle.Xitax wrote:I don't have a problem with knowing that the combat predictor is not 100% accurate and the numbers that we do get there are a good enough to give me a feeling for possible results as they are right now.