Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4068598" data-attributes="member: 4937">Would it suprise you to learn that I was a fairly skilled SFB player? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />And as someone whose been involved in the porting of SFB over to real time continious movement, I can confidently assure you that SFB in fact does no such thing.What SFB really is handling with its impulses of movement is the problem of initiative in a turn based game.  The solution it adopts is more equivalent to the 1st edition rule that fighters with multiple attacks took turns within the turn resolving the attacks.  It's trying to avoid letting one side finish its whole action without a response.My calculation can be represented by: NetValue(x) = AddedValue(x)/Complexity(x)AddedValue('1-1-1-1') = 0.  Complexity('1-1-1-1') = 1. NetValue('1-1-1-1') = 0/1 = 0It has no added value.  It doesn't improve the game at all except by possibly decreasing complexity compared to some other possible system, but any degree of complexity would add more value.  As such, it would lose in my judgement to virtually anything.  I'd rather do away with the grid and use a ruler to measure distance.The main reason that this isn't a deal breaker for me is that unlike many of the other changes, this would be easy to 'house rule'.  Resolving distance is a fairly self-contained subsystem of the game.</blockquote>

Verification