Started by inkelyad, May 30, 2010, 07:24:19 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: inkelyad on May 31, 2010, 04:41:27 PMSorry, my math was wrong. But current implementation really too often makes too big cities.
Quote from: jamespetts on May 31, 2010, 04:32:28 PMcan you give some examples of the maps created with and without your patch - either in a table or with screenshots? It's hard to gauge the effect without a little more detail.
Quote from: prissi on May 31, 2010, 08:30:48 PM The probability for a city larger than 10x mean_number is actually 0,66%, i.e. you need on average more than 150 cities until one is larger than 10x mean_number.
Quote from: prissi on June 01, 2010, 09:25:21 PMThe main difference between the patch and the unpatched version is, that the mean number is effectively 2.5 higher than in the patched version (well, more precisely rising from 2 to 2.8, since the slope differs a little.)
Quote from: jamespetts on June 01, 2010, 10:50:50 PMdid you intend for your patch to have the effect that Prissi describes?
Quote from: inkelyad on June 05, 2010, 02:11:30 AMNo.It is hard to get proper "city and satellite towns/villages" map in current implementation. Rank 1 sizes are "too random".The goal was to correct it.But it seems to me I was too successful. Now randomness is too small.
Quote from: jamespetts on June 05, 2010, 12:04:52 PMHmm - perhaps a happy medium is to be sought...?