Difference between revisions of "Talk:Time Units"

From UFOpaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Thoughts for Ethereal on cap+1 probability)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
--[[User:Danial|Danial]] 15:52, 28 December 2005 (PST)
 
--[[User:Danial|Danial]] 15:52, 28 December 2005 (PST)
 
----
 
----
 +
 +
EthC, on second thought I'm thinking the chance of cap+1 for secondaries, is one third. Basically, three things can happen:
 +
 +
  Cap-2: Roll 2, final value = cap
 +
  Cap-1: Roll 1, final value = cap
 +
  Cap-1: Roll 2, final value = cap+1
 +
 +
No other values or rolls matter in this regard, AFAIK. We assume we have approached the cap randomly, IOW, a player can't try to play with the rolls and influence them - but that's easy because the secondary stat would've been something much lower as a rookie, would've gotten lots of varying rolls as it increased, and then is constrained to 0-2 in the final leg of its increases. (The same cannot be said for primary-stat rolls because a person can use the experience counts to try to "edge" to cap-1, then make 11 actions to try for a 2-6 roll. Secondary stats are immune to manipulation. Not counting hacking, of course.)
 +
 +
This is not something I could've modelled easily, because a rigorous test would've required edging a lot of soldiers up from some secondary-stat score low enough that it would have been "random" by the time they approached the cap. Then rinse and repeat thousands of times. IOW, tons of real-world time.
 +
 +
I can say with certainty that if you are at cap-1, you are uniformly likely to roll 0, 1, or 2. Thus cap-1 acheives cap+1, one-third of the time. (Ok, 32.762% of the time, N=15,920.) But this is only an affirmation that XCOM uses the usual "roll within a range" (here, 0-2), not a true statistical proof of what happens when you approach the cap. AKA, it's one thing to hack a savegame so that all secondaries are at cap-1, then reload that a ton of times... that's 30 seconds per data dump, times the number of soldiers in the savegame. But it's way more work to do actual, real combats through multiple combats - and do this dozens or hundreds of different times.
 +
 +
Then again, it could be simulated simply by doing a zillion 0-2 rolls (start from 0, have a cap of 100, repeat a million times)... hmm.
 +
 +
Your thoughts, or anyone else's?
 +
 +
---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 20:10, 17 May 2006 (PDT)

Revision as of 03:10, 18 May 2006

Question: Is the TU usage for urban and rural items different? I see entries about broken urban fences, or Urban Garden Beds, but nothing for the rural equivalents.


The TU Usage is based on each tile's MCD data. The Farm terrain doesn't have fences or garden beds. It does however have a wheat field, which is in the list.

--Danial 15:52, 28 December 2005 (PST)


EthC, on second thought I'm thinking the chance of cap+1 for secondaries, is one third. Basically, three things can happen:

 Cap-2: Roll 2, final value = cap
 Cap-1: Roll 1, final value = cap
 Cap-1: Roll 2, final value = cap+1

No other values or rolls matter in this regard, AFAIK. We assume we have approached the cap randomly, IOW, a player can't try to play with the rolls and influence them - but that's easy because the secondary stat would've been something much lower as a rookie, would've gotten lots of varying rolls as it increased, and then is constrained to 0-2 in the final leg of its increases. (The same cannot be said for primary-stat rolls because a person can use the experience counts to try to "edge" to cap-1, then make 11 actions to try for a 2-6 roll. Secondary stats are immune to manipulation. Not counting hacking, of course.)

This is not something I could've modelled easily, because a rigorous test would've required edging a lot of soldiers up from some secondary-stat score low enough that it would have been "random" by the time they approached the cap. Then rinse and repeat thousands of times. IOW, tons of real-world time.

I can say with certainty that if you are at cap-1, you are uniformly likely to roll 0, 1, or 2. Thus cap-1 acheives cap+1, one-third of the time. (Ok, 32.762% of the time, N=15,920.) But this is only an affirmation that XCOM uses the usual "roll within a range" (here, 0-2), not a true statistical proof of what happens when you approach the cap. AKA, it's one thing to hack a savegame so that all secondaries are at cap-1, then reload that a ton of times... that's 30 seconds per data dump, times the number of soldiers in the savegame. But it's way more work to do actual, real combats through multiple combats - and do this dozens or hundreds of different times.

Then again, it could be simulated simply by doing a zillion 0-2 rolls (start from 0, have a cap of 100, repeat a million times)... hmm.

Your thoughts, or anyone else's?

---MikeTheRed 20:10, 17 May 2006 (PDT)