> From: "Charles Gadda" <cgadda@earthlink.net>
Erol writes:
> > My reason for thinking that there's a connection is
> > that if injury results in significant impairment -
> > impairment worth -1 Dx or more in game terms - then
> > the people reporting continued function *would have
> > noticed* that impairment.
Charles replies:
> This doesn't follow. There are people who have been
> shot but not necessarily realized it.
True ... but it doesn't mean that they are not impaired.
Not noticing an impairment is not the same as saying that
the impairment doesn't exist. Its even possible that the
person who was injured can do MORE damage to themselves
by continuing to operate as if they were unimpaired ( ie,
continuing to play ball on an injured ankle or knee )
Charles continues:
> In any event, how does one objectively measure this?
> How do you know if you are 10%, 15%, 20% etc. impaired?
This is a subject of much debate within the modelling
and simulation community. To my knowledge, there is no
consensus on how this kind of thing should be modelled,
but everyone agrees that its a factor.
What does this mean to us? Well, it depends on how you
look at it. If you are looking for a strong scientific
foundation on which to base your impairment model, you
might decide not to implement one at all because its un-
likely that your implementation will stand up to scien-
tific scrutiny. On the other hand, it also gives you
the license to put in almost anything you want as long
at it seems reasonable to you and your players.
Dan
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"