Originally posted by NiborRis
This is pretty naive thinking. Chaos theory, complex systems, etc etc - it's fairly trivial to take a small number of relatively simple equations and not be able to fully predict the outcome of all possible inputs. When you start considering the large number of inputs involved here (22 players in a play, with 14 attributes, 10+ SAs, VAs, and transient data like location on the field, current velocity, energy, breath, morale, etc...) it's not surprising at all that the full implications of all the various formulas require actually looking at the results rather than just thinking about it in your head for a bit.
Chaos theory? lol. Like the butterfly effect?!?! like if Bort makes some kind of small mathematical error somewhere there's no telling what it's going to effect? ok I can get with that idea...but the difference between GLB code and something like economics, where this theory is applicable..is that Bort set all the rules and had control of all the inputs...the only Chaos in the system should be his personal errors (and I'm sure he had less then I would have)..and that can be tested from the ground up by CodeRedders.
I also don't understand how this pertains to testing out SA's as we are discussing above..we aren't talking about ID'ing root causes of fluctuations 20 degrees down the line because a frog farted in Peru...we are talking about testing the scaling of SA's and their effects given attribute levels and VA's..right? this is just a simple test of the code and it's output...
Maybe I am Naive...proceed as planned I guess.
This is pretty naive thinking. Chaos theory, complex systems, etc etc - it's fairly trivial to take a small number of relatively simple equations and not be able to fully predict the outcome of all possible inputs. When you start considering the large number of inputs involved here (22 players in a play, with 14 attributes, 10+ SAs, VAs, and transient data like location on the field, current velocity, energy, breath, morale, etc...) it's not surprising at all that the full implications of all the various formulas require actually looking at the results rather than just thinking about it in your head for a bit.
Chaos theory? lol. Like the butterfly effect?!?! like if Bort makes some kind of small mathematical error somewhere there's no telling what it's going to effect? ok I can get with that idea...but the difference between GLB code and something like economics, where this theory is applicable..is that Bort set all the rules and had control of all the inputs...the only Chaos in the system should be his personal errors (and I'm sure he had less then I would have)..and that can be tested from the ground up by CodeRedders.
I also don't understand how this pertains to testing out SA's as we are discussing above..we aren't talking about ID'ing root causes of fluctuations 20 degrees down the line because a frog farted in Peru...we are talking about testing the scaling of SA's and their effects given attribute levels and VA's..right? this is just a simple test of the code and it's output...
Maybe I am Naive...proceed as planned I guess.