RE: (OT) Rules "inspiration" (was [OT] Bring and Battle

>sacrilige and that my stated goal of unmasking and closing loopholes is
>just a flimsy cover for my evil desire to actually use said
>loopholes in a
>game.

Yes the difference is the motivation for the analysis.

>Welcome to the club, Tim.

What club are you subscribing me too?

>I am ready to amend my statement: I don't think anyone who
>can't do this much probability math, doesn't have someone to do it for
him
>AND doesn't bother with equivalent amount of playtesting, has no
business
designing
>fundamentally mathematical processes, i.e. games.

I would agree with this statement. Of examples the one that got to
me was the dreaded DAT (Damage Allocation Table) in SFB. This
has a probability slant that weapons had a higher probability
of being initially hit, and provoked a special later sanctioned
tactic called the Miazia (sp?) effect. This always really annoyed
me but it was impossible to *fix* the sacred table.

>Besides, being *initially* heuristically designed doesn't mean
>it couldn't or shouldn't be checked out with exact calculations.

Being heuristically designed shouldn't rule out mathematical
validation if you want to do it.

tim jones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------