XCOM 3 - Everything We Want To See

fadedc said:

Despite the name, I don't think he's from France. Based on what little I've understood from his posts I'm placing from China or somewhere nearby.

Click to expand...

Ah, good point. I shouldn't assume what he does to French is any more merciful than what he does to English.

Ripper said:

We do have another French-speaker here, though, and he has mastered both English and Earth-logic.

Click to expand...

I can neither confirm nor deny that.

Ripper said:

Perhaps you could explain it to him, and he could attempt to translate?

Click to expand...

Hé chien, dis-moi tout.

ChienAboyeur said:

(...)
So

From this, of course, it must be understood that people do not understand that they have 5 pc to miss (quasi certainty to miss) and when 1 out of 20 expresses exactly the same thing as 5 pc, it does not express a quasi certainty to miss.


Beside, a point was one in 20 what.

Click to expand...

A point was one in 20 what WHAT ??????????

I think I might have it. Originally I said:

"If you say 95% chance to hit, they interpret that as "virtually certain". If you say 1 in 20 times you'll miss, they understand that'll come up quite often. "

I think it's obvious what I meant, but technically I should have said, "1 in 20 times you'll expect to miss." Otherwise it sounds like 1 in every 20 times you're certain to miss, which of course is not how it works.

Is that what this is all about, Chien?

ChienAboyeur said:

Sure, sure. Reversion in blame.

That is a limitation in the used model, not the opposite.

UgoIgo percentage based models barely support representation of sure shots, 100 pc hits are not welcome. The 5 95 pc bracket is a cheap way to introduce uncertainty.

In combat situations, a point blank shot is missed for causes that are not included in the UgoIgo modelization stuff.

Trained killers do not miss their target in the conditions depicted by UgoIgo vid products.

Click to expand...

First, I'm not trying to blame anyone, I'm just saying that what you might be missing isn't in fact a point blank shot at a target standing still, hell, even I would hit 100% then. If that's how one regards turn based combat, that means one has a hard time grasping the abstraction.

On the other hand, I agree that using percentage chances as a way of crafting tension isn't necessarily the best way, and I've enjoyed several games where that wasn't the case. Games like Into the breach and Bards Tale 4 use turn based without being based on chance. What this effectively does in a turn based system though, is it turns them into puzzle games. While the more RNG based once are more about stacking the odds in your favour.

I enjoy both.

TomRon said:

First, I'm not trying to blame anyone,

Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

I'm just saying that what you might be missing isn't in fact a point blank shot at a target standing still, hell, even I would hit 100% then. If that's how one regards turn based combat, that means one has a hard time grasping the abstraction.

Click to expand...

Anything like that was stated.

A shot with a shot gun on a guy running at you is not a miss condition shot in a firefight (or as it was told the conditions that could lead to a miss are not included in UgoIgo products)

Professionnally trained killers like people working in the military do not miss that kind of shots in battlefield conditions.

UgoIgo percentage based products barely support certain events. It has nothing to do with what is represented, still people and stuff.

That remark shows double standards again. The issue of representation and how it affects porting board games to PC was made multiple times in relation to Space Hulk, to explain how it ended by misrepresenting terminators and genestealers.

Of course, UgoIgo is not supposed to represent still units. That is double standard people who keep switching from one version to another. One standard people do not need that.

Ripper said:

Don't know what the hell you're on about, Chien, and I find the effort to decipher your babble is not typically justified.

Click to expand...

The effort is not justified anytime there is no answer in store. Which is the case.

People wrongfully assume that 95 pc chances is quasi certainty to succeed.
(consequently, they also assume 5 pc chances is quasi certainty not to fail)

Telling them that 5 pc chances is actually 1 in 20 supposedly clears the issue.
(consequently, telling them that 95 pc is 19 in 20 also clears the issue)

All this when stating that 5pc , 1 in 20, 95, 19 in 20 are all equivalent ways to express the same thing.

The result of 200 hundred years of institutionalized double standard.

Ripper said:

I think I might have it. Originally I said:

"If you say 95% chance to hit, they interpret that as "virtually certain". If you say 1 in 20 times you'll miss, they understand that'll come up quite often. "

I think it's obvious what I meant, but technically I should have said, "1 in 20 times you'll expect to miss." Otherwise it sounds like 1 in every 20 times you're certain to miss, which of course is not how it works.

Is that what this is all about, Chien?

Click to expand...

That is simply running into circles.

As stated already, people do not have answers in store.

Probabilities are prospective, they connect to expectations. The semantic switch to expect changes nothing.

You'll expect to miss 1 in 20 times does not tell 20 times what.

People do not have answers to that question.

It could be you'll expect to miss 1 in 20 times zero.

Ah, alrighty then. Total bollocks it is.

ChienAboyeur said:

Professionnally trained killers like people working in the military do not miss that kind of shots in battlefield conditions.

Click to expand...

Except sometimes they do.
You know, a drop of sweat in the eye right when you press the trigger, or some dust, a asshole bug, a brutal and impredictable change of wind, an erratic target, a brainfart, etc…
That's those kind of random bullshits dice checks are supposed to simulate in an RPGs and in video games with RNG system.

It always worked fine enough in RPGs, especially if you have a good and imaginative DM who can give you some fun feedbacks about your missed actions, so don't get your panties all in a bunch dawg, because it ain't going to change!