 |
|
SlowThinker
|
|
homeless, Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2000 time: 06:25
|
|
I have tested it and there was no such a bonus...
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Bloody Monk

|
 |
austin, tx
May 2001 time: 23:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DrSpike
I can't remember an instance where reloading has biased results.....usually it provides the same info as straight play.
BM's uncertainty theorem, that you can't know both the bonus and the direction of the bonus simultaneously also seems a little spurious. |
Not sure we are talking about the same thing DrSpike. To my way of thinking, one cannot jump to the amount of some thing before first determining the existence of the thing. Also, I seem to remember that while reloading can result in a loss becoming a win, usually the first win is the best win. Subsequent wins seem to have more damage than the first. That's why I think reloading does have a bias. But, I agree in advance that this is only my humble opinion.
The idea that looking at something causes it to change is not without precedent in CivII. Samson and Solo found that looking at a city, in certain years where a change was due in the commodities that are supplied, would cause a different list to be presented.
I don't know the answer. It's just that ST is a very well regarded tester and his results can be relied on because he is careful about the way he does his testing. But still, many if not most players have the impression--based on actual play--that a sneak attack bonus applies. So, I was attempting to redirect the thinking to the question: "What else could be causing this divergence??"
Monk
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|