Both are wrong... But one won't give you a disatvantage. Rounding up or down won't represent the real number... by definition
- 2
Rounding in UI?
- Thread starter kalauer
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
No difference there: both are wrong. But rounded is closer to the truth. And thus, more helpful.
You claim that overestimating the income by (at max) 0.5 is more harmful than underestimating it by (at max) 1. I claim under- or overestimating both produce the same harm. But we underestimate by a much igher value than we would overestimate.
Plus rounding is just the more common way to present numbers. hence my statement "getting used to". One can, one will. Of course. But should one have to? Remember it is very easy to change this.
- 2
Of course overestimating is in an economical sense more harmfull
Examples given above: Pizza, rocket fuel, money left at the end of the month.
In stellaris you play an empire and not an equation solving calculator
- 2
Underestimating of available resources is just as harmful as it increases opportunity costs by hindering beneficial investments. This concept may be less prominent but causes a lot of harm.
And none of the examples you brought up is relevant for stellaris. For once, it is about income, not "left money". And since you can not go negative anyway, it only influences plans you make. You have 90.1 (shown 90) influence, 4.8 income (shown 5) and want to use 50 now and 45 next month?
Rounded UI shows you can do it next month, but you can't. This is the worst case. Catastrophic as being fuel-deprived in orbit of mars? Probably not. You wait one more month.
Other way around: You have 90.1 (shown 90) influence, 4.8 income (shown 4) and want to use 50 now and 45 next month.
Cut-Off Ui shows you can not do both. What will you do? Still spend the 50 or 45 and then wait one more month, jsut as you would have done with rounded values.
But if you wanted to use 95 with the next income and had 90.9 (shown 90) and 4.9 income (shown 4), you might come to the conclusion you can not afford it, thus using it differently (worse, since it was your second choice). Or you wait, losing one month of benefit from the action (which can be seen as payback on your investion of influence points).
- 2
It is a game, so what sounds like more "fun"?
Having a rounded up value showed (e.g. 5 instead of 4.9) and you want to buy something for 5 and get the message "insufficient founds"
or
Having a rounded down value shoved (e.g. 4 instead of 4.9) showing that you can't afford something for 5 and that you have to wait until you exceed the needed cost.
It's not about scientific accuracy.
- 1
i thought we settled this: I agree on the stock. So your point on having "insufficient funds" is invalid.
I agree, it is not about scientific accuracy. It could be about just everyday accuracy if one added one more digit. But as it is, this is about either showing a very wrong or a wrong value.
But considering what is "convenient": my perception is that rounded values are much more common than cut-off ones in daily live. In fact, a beer for 1,99$ does not cost 1$. And that is where we get the issue.
Now direct costs in Stellaris are presented exactly, until they get to the top bar, where having 4.9 income is the same as having 4.9 income and then spending 0.85 on an edict.
But I get now you like it the way it is. Maybe I'll just try to mod it to my content when I have the chance.
- 3
It was never about the costs, which are not fractions, but integers (except maybe the edicts) .
It was about your income and your budget/reserves.
Of course a beer for 1.99 doesn't cost 1 nor does it cost 2
but
With 2.1,2.2, 2.3,etc you can buy it, with1.98
You cannot (or the bartender gives you a discount)
- 2
It never was about the reserves. Someone pointed at it and I said, yes, granted, cutting makes sense for reserves. But it does not for income.
And you can not get around the fact that having +4.9 on influence and then spending 0.85 per month on an edict yieulds you with an unchanged representation of your influence income. Much more incorrect than it would be if it was rounded.
- 2
To get a convincing answer. I got answers that are plausible in some way, but not convincing to me, so I keep asking.
i certainly did not ask to be allowed to say yes to any reasoning presented.
- 2
Legit, so we both have different opinions. I can live with that
- 2
A ui should never tell you that you have more or that you will get more than you actually will. That is just bad design.
If you tell people their income is 5 they will want 5 no matter how much you tell them they need to check the small print. You can only really round up if you are actually going to hand over the extra
If you tell people their income is 5 they will want 5 no matter how much you tell them they need to check the small print. You can only really round up if you are actually going to hand over the extra
- 2
That's a normative Statement I do not agree with. But as @corny.1234 pointed out, different opinions are acceptable, at least. If opinions weren't different, they would be called Facts
.I am still unhappy though, that there is no compelling point (for me, granted) that forces cutting the values.
- 2
I would say that there is some value in always knowing exactly whether the conversion to an integer has increased or decreased the value; you don't get that with rounding.
The problem is if everyone agrees Stock values should truncate then that is the only undisputed rounding type we have. To then have more 'correct' rounding info somewhere else is poor UI. If you round down in one place and round up in another then it is unclear what rounding is being used, however if truncation rounding is universal then you know that no matter what number you are looking what it means. +34 Minerals mean you are getting at least +34 minerals per month. 354 Energy means you have at least 354 energy.
It is poor UI to have 354.5 minerals in stock round to 354, while +33.5 minerals per month round to 34. 34 might be more correct from a mathematics standpoint, but it is less correct from a usability perspective. Given this is a game, rather than MatLab I think usability > mathematical precision.
- 2
Being consistent is a point I can agree upon.
Still want that second digit in the top bar, though
.- 2
And even the 'mathemetically less correct' standpoint seems quite arbitrary to me. After all, the UI shows a 100% mathematically correct representation of the truncated value, something the developers put there because you can use it more consistently. This is a design decision, and in no way more at fault mathematically than showing any other value. Mathematically, showing the number 0 instead would be quite as correct, if you wanted the UI to show the number 0. You don't go about thinking what value mathematics dictate you should be showing and then implementing it. You think what value you want to show, and than you show that, correctly.
- 1
I would not object to thatBeing consistent is a point I can agree upon.
Still want that second digit in the top bar, though
More info is good info!