| 1 |
[q]I disagree with the above post in a complicated way that I may figure out later. [/q]
|
1 |
[q]I disagree with the above post in a complicated way that I may figure out later. [/q]
|
| 2 |
@Dregs I think I am honing in on my disagreement with what you are writing. Or perhaps how you are writing it.
|
2 |
@Dregs I think I am honing in on my disagreement with what you are writing. Or perhaps how you are writing it.
|
| 3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
| 4 |
Basically,
you
write
like
you
know
the
objective
truth
about
the
very
nature
of
competition
itself,
and
all
you
need
to
do
is
argue
people
into
seeing
this
truth.
You
consistently
denegrate
abilities
that
don't
fit
in
your
definition
of
"skill",
calling
those
advocating
for
a
different
type
of
competition
(
what
you
see
as
subverting
the
competition)
as
having
"no
buisness"
winning,
just
wanting
to
hurt
those
with
"real"
skill,
trying
to
win
even
though
they
lack
talent,
or
just
being
envious.
I
seriously
cannot
tell
how
your
view
looks
from
the
inside
or
what
type
of
thing
you
think
the
views
of
others
are.
Do
you
think
you
are
objectively
correct?
Do
you
think
that
everyone
agrees
with
you
on
the
fundamental
nature
of
competition,
but
that
some
people
just
happen
to
be
evil
(
like
a
strawman
Christian
that
cannot
concieve
of
people
who
aren't
either
Christains
or
Satanists)
?
|
4 |
Basically,
you
write
like
you
know
the
objective
truth
about
the
very
nature
of
competition
itself,
and
all
you
need
to
do
is
argue
people
into
seeing
this
truth.
You
consistently
denigrate
abilities
that
don't
fit
in
your
definition
of
"skill",
calling
those
advocating
for
a
different
type
of
competition
(
what
you
see
as
subverting
the
competition)
as
having
"no
business"
winning,
just
wanting
to
hurt
those
with
"real"
skill,
trying
to
win
even
though
they
lack
talent,
or
just
being
envious.
I
seriously
cannot
tell
how
your
view
looks
from
the
inside
or
what
type
of
thing
you
think
the
views
of
others
are.
Do
you
think
you
are
objectively
correct?
Do
you
think
that
everyone
agrees
with
you
on
the
fundamental
nature
of
competition,
but
that
some
people
just
happen
to
be
evil
(
like
a
strawman
Christian
that
cannot
conceive
of
people
who
aren't
either
Christains
or
Satanists)
?
|
| 5 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 6 |
What
I
see
is
a
particular
opinion
on
the
types
of
skills
that
should
and
not
make
you
good
at
ZK.
If
you
took
a
step
back
and
considered
your
opinion
as
just
one
in
a
sea
of
many,
then
I
expect
you
would
find
quite
a
bit
of
common
ground
with
most
of
the
people
here.
You
don't
need
to
argue
people
into
your
exact
opinion
and
attempts
to
do
so
are
often
pointless.
I
don't
think
your
view
is
as
hardline
as
some
of
your
posts
make
it
out
to
be,
but
that
might
be
a
failure
by
me
to
put
myself
in
your
shoes.
Perhaps
you
are
mainly
reacting
to
a
percieved
slippery
slope.
|
6 |
What
I
see
is
a
particular
opinion
on
the
types
of
skills
that
should
and
not
make
you
good
at
ZK.
If
you
took
a
step
back
and
considered
your
opinion
as
just
one
in
a
sea
of
many,
then
I
expect
you
would
find
quite
a
bit
of
common
ground
with
most
of
the
people
here.
You
don't
need
to
argue
people
into
your
exact
opinion
and
attempts
to
do
so
are
often
pointless.
I
don't
think
your
view
is
as
hard
line
as
some
of
your
posts
make
it
out
to
be,
but
that
might
be
a
failure
by
me
to
put
myself
in
your
shoes.
Perhaps
you
are
mainly
reacting
to
a
perceived
slippery
slope.
|
| 7 |
\n
|
7 |
\n
|
| 8 |
There are many different types of skill. You barely mentioned Zero-K in your post so, although it was probably implicit, humor my generalisation of what you said to other games.
|
8 |
There are many different types of skill. You barely mentioned Zero-K in your post so, although it was probably implicit, humor my generalisation of what you said to other games.
|
| 9 |
* "Being capable of multitasking is tantamount to good play" - What about in Olympic archery? (idk much about archery but it looks like they are focused on a single task)
|
9 |
* "Being capable of multitasking is tantamount to good play" - What about in Olympic archery? (idk much about archery but it looks like they are focused on a single task)
|
| 10 |
* "Automation doesn't create gladiators, it creates an endless cycle of code adjustments." - Why not both, such as in Screeps or an AI challenge? http://ants.aichallenge.org/
|
10 |
* "Automation doesn't create gladiators, it creates an endless cycle of code adjustments." - Why not both, such as in Screeps or an AI challenge? http://ants.aichallenge.org/
|
| 11 |
* "They have put in the research and practise" - What if engineering is also required, such as in Battle Bots? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BattleBots
|
11 |
* "They have put in the research and practise" - What if engineering is also required, such as in Battle Bots? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BattleBots
|
| 12 |
* "a place where people with talent should stand out" - But only a particular set of talents?
|
12 |
* "a place where people with talent should stand out" - But only a particular set of talents?
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
Now you might reply
|
14 |
Now you might reply
|
| 15 |
[q]Sure @PRO_rANDY doesn't have the strength to be an Olympic gymnast, but that isn't relevant to Zero-K.[/q]
|
15 |
[q]Sure @PRO_rANDY doesn't have the strength to be an Olympic gymnast, but that isn't relevant to Zero-K.[/q]
|
| 16 |
and you would right (assuming Liquipedia is correct), but that highlights my point. You're not arguing against a bunch of evil people who know what "real work" is and are just too lazy to get the "rewards" without any "talent". You're arguing against a bunch of people who don't share your exact view of what kind of talent or skill should be rewarded by Zero-K.
|
16 |
and you would right (assuming Liquipedia is correct), but that highlights my point. You're not arguing against a bunch of evil people who know what "real work" is and are just too lazy to get the "rewards" without any "talent". You're arguing against a bunch of people who don't share your exact view of what kind of talent or skill should be rewarded by Zero-K.
|
| 17 |
\n
|
17 |
\n
|
| 18 |
Imagine
a
space
(
a
vector
space)
with
axsis
(
basis)
corresponding
to
everything
a
human
can
be
good
or
bad
at.
Everyone
is
somewhere
in
this
space
based
on
all
their
abilities.
Every
game
is
in
this
space
to
(
assuming
a
bunch
of
unrealistic
linearity)
with
its
position
(
vector)
based
on
what
skills
it
requires.
A
game
that
cares
nothing
about
memory
has
a
very
low
value
on
that
axis
while
a
game
that
cares
a
lot
about
multitasking
as
a
high
value.
The
closer
a
human
is
to
a
game
in
this
space
(
the
higher
the
dot
product
of
their
vectors)
,
the
better
they
are
at
the
game.
Zero-K
is
a
point
in
this
space,
but
the
opinions
around
where
Zero-K
should
be
are
more
like
a
cloud.
|
18 |
Imagine
a
space
(
a
vector
space)
with
axis
(
basis)
corresponding
to
everything
a
human
can
be
good
or
bad
at.
Everyone
is
somewhere
in
this
space
based
on
all
their
abilities.
Every
game
is
in
this
space
to
(
assuming
a
bunch
of
unrealistic
linearity)
with
its
position
(
vector)
based
on
what
skills
it
requires.
A
game
that
cares
nothing
about
memory
has
a
very
low
value
on
that
axis
while
a
game
that
cares
a
lot
about
multitasking
as
a
high
value.
The
closer
a
human
is
to
a
game
in
this
space
(
the
higher
the
dot
product
of
their
vectors)
,
the
better
they
are
at
the
game.
Zero-K
is
a
point
in
this
space,
but
the
opinions
around
where
Zero-K
should
be
are
more
like
a
cloud.
|
| 19 |
\n
|
19 |
\n
|
| 20 |
Take
a
look
at
Battle
Bots
again.
There
are
people
who
think
that
Zero-K
should
be
closer
to
Battle
Bots
than
you
do.
You
can't
deny
that
Battle
Bots
is
a
competition
(
or
at
least
its
ideal
is,
I
don't
know
the
particulars)
.
Battle
Bots
is
testing
the
player's
skill
at
designing
and
constructing
a
robot
prior
to
fighting,
as
well
as
their
reaction
time
and
micromanagement
when
controlling
the
robot
in
battle.
This
is
akin
to
people
tinkering
with
the
ZK
UI
prior
to
games,
and
then
piloiting
it
against
other
players
with
similar
setups
ingame.
If
their
janky
unit
AI
breaks
and
shoots
themself
in
the
foot
they
are
not
annoyed
at
the
UI,
they
have
had
their
widget-writing
skill
tested
and
found
wanting.
Improving
this
skill
is
part
of
the
competition
for
them.
And
I
have
just
hit
upon
another
reason
that
simply
including
player-widgets
in
the
repository
is
a
non-solution
(
a
default
widget
has
to
work,
it
is
not
a
learning
experience
when
someone
else's
code
breaks)
.
|
20 |
Take
a
look
at
Battle
Bots
again.
There
are
people
who
think
that
Zero-K
should
be
closer
to
Battle
Bots
than
you
do.
You
can't
deny
that
Battle
Bots
is
a
competition
(
or
at
least
its
ideal
is,
I
don't
know
the
particulars)
.
Battle
Bots
is
testing
the
player's
skill
at
designing
and
constructing
a
robot
prior
to
fighting,
as
well
as
their
reaction
time
and
micromanagement
when
controlling
the
robot
in
battle.
This
is
akin
to
people
tinkering
with
the
ZK
UI
prior
to
games,
and
then
piloting
it
against
other
players
with
similar
setups
ingame.
If
their
janky
unit
AI
breaks
and
shoots
themselves
in
the
foot
they
are
not
annoyed
at
the
UI,
they
have
had
their
widget-writing
skill
tested
and
found
wanting.
Improving
this
skill
is
part
of
the
competition
for
them.
And
I
have
just
hit
upon
another
reason
that
simply
including
player-widgets
in
the
repository
is
a
non-solution
(
a
default
widget
has
to
work,
it
is
not
a
learning
experience
when
someone
else's
code
breaks)
.
|
| 21 |
\n
|
21 |
\n
|
| 22 |
Finally
on
that
post,
maybe
you
would
need
to
push
your
opinion
that
hard
if
one
of
the
more
hardcore
cyborg
players
were
at
the
wheel,
but
they
are
not
so
there
is
time
for
subtley
and
understanding.
I
think
the
number
of
players
that
actually
want
to
play
the
implications
of
full-cyborg
Zero-K
is
rather
small.
I
don't
know
much
about
the
details
of
Istrolid,
but
it
sounds
like
a
cautionary
tale.
|
22 |
Finally
on
that
post,
maybe
you
would
need
to
push
your
opinion
that
hard
if
one
of
the
more
hardcore
cyborg
players
were
at
the
wheel,
but
they
are
not
so
there
is
time
for
subtly
and
understanding.
I
think
the
number
of
players
that
actually
want
to
play
the
implications
of
full-cyborg
Zero-K
is
rather
small.
I
don't
know
much
about
the
details
of
Istrolid,
but
it
sounds
like
a
cautionary
tale.
|
| 23 |
\n
|
23 |
\n
|
| 24 |
[q]To answer your final point, I think a particular play should be rewarded if it is a smart, strategical decision.[/q]
|
24 |
[q]To answer your final point, I think a particular play should be rewarded if it is a smart, strategical decision.[/q]
|
| 25 |
@PRO_rANDY
I
don't
think
anyone
could
reasonably
disagree
with
this.
The
disagreement
comes
when
judging
what
should
be
a
strategic
option,
and
baiting
enemy
units
into
clearly
bad
actions
often
comes
down
on
the
side
of
something
that
shouldn't
be
in
the
strategy
space.
What
if
Glaives
had
a
mechanic
where
they
chased
any
unit
they
shot
at
automatically
with
Fire
At
Will
for
10
seconds
and
were
uncontrollable
for
that
entire
time?
It
would
be
a
good
strategy
to
bait
Glaives,
and
removing
this
hinderance
would
remove
options,
but
we
think
the
game
can
handle
the
loss
of
such
options.
Part
of
the
philosophy
of
ZK
is
that
a
player's
simple
desires
for
a
unit
should
be
communicable
without
requiring
an
upkeep
in
micromanagement
to
implement.
"Don't
fire
at
Fleas"
is
one
such
desire.
This
desire
would
have
upkeep
if
implemented
via
Hold
Fire
and
constant
checking
to
see
whether
an
appropriate
target
is
in
range.
|
25 |
@PRO_rANDY
I
don't
think
anyone
could
reasonably
disagree
with
this.
The
disagreement
comes
when
judging
what
should
be
a
strategic
option,
and
baiting
enemy
units
into
clearly
bad
actions
often
comes
down
on
the
side
of
something
that
shouldn't
be
in
the
strategy
space.
What
if
Glaives
had
a
mechanic
where
they
chased
any
unit
they
shot
at
automatically
with
Fire
At
Will
for
10
seconds
and
were
uncontrollable
for
that
entire
time?
It
would
be
a
good
strategy
to
bait
Glaives,
and
removing
this
hindrance
would
remove
options,
but
we
think
the
game
can
handle
the
loss
of
such
options.
Part
of
the
philosophy
of
ZK
is
that
a
player's
simple
desires
for
a
unit
should
be
communicable
without
requiring
an
upkeep
in
micromanagement
to
implement.
"Don't
fire
at
Fleas"
is
one
such
desire.
This
desire
would
have
upkeep
if
implemented
via
Hold
Fire
and
constant
checking
to
see
whether
an
appropriate
target
is
in
range.
|
| 26 |
\n
|
26 |
\n
|
| 27 |
To
reiterate,
this
philosophy
is
not
the
same
as
that
of
"reducing
micromanagement
burden".
Micromanagement
will
always
be
present
largely
because
the
fast
pace
of
the
game
makes
your
overall
goals
change
rapidly
as
new
information
and
counterplays
come
to
light.
A
simple
AI
could
not
react
to
all
the
ways
your
goals
often
change
during
a
raid.
Whenever
set
your
Ronin
to
Attack
Move
and
go
do
something
else
you
are
missing
out
the
choice
to
clump
up,
dive
in,
move
back,
or
do
some
other
maneuver.
Such
choices
should
be
frequent
enough
to
make
them
worth
making,
instead
of
just
leaving
units
on
Attack
Move.
Sure,
these
choices
could
be
made
automatically
be
a
global
AI
that
has
a
valuation
of
your
army,
the
enemy
army,
and
each
of
the
targets
in
range.
That
is
why
the
philosophy
is
about
simple
desires
like
"stay
at
max
range"
or
"don't
fire
10
Scalpels
at
one
Glaive".
There
shouldn't
be
a
"go
perform
an
optimal
battle
over
here"
command,
even
though
it
would
certainly
reduce
micromanagement.
|
27 |
To
reiterate,
this
philosophy
is
not
the
same
as
that
of
"reducing
micromanagement
burden".
Micromanagement
will
always
be
present
largely
because
the
fast
pace
of
the
game
makes
your
overall
goals
change
rapidly
as
new
information
and
counter
plays
come
to
light.
A
simple
AI
could
not
react
to
all
the
ways
your
goals
often
change
during
a
raid.
Whenever
set
your
Ronin
to
Attack
Move
and
go
do
something
else
you
are
missing
out
the
choice
to
clump
up,
dive
in,
move
back,
or
do
some
other
maneuver.
Such
choices
should
be
frequent
enough
to
make
them
worth
making,
instead
of
just
leaving
units
on
Attack
Move.
Sure,
these
choices
could
be
made
automatically
be
a
global
AI
that
has
a
valuation
of
your
army,
the
enemy
army,
and
each
of
the
targets
in
range.
That
is
why
the
philosophy
is
about
simple
desires
like
"stay
at
max
range"
or
"don't
fire
10
Scalpels
at
one
Glaive".
There
shouldn't
be
a
"go
perform
an
optimal
battle
over
here"
command,
even
though
it
would
certainly
reduce
micromanagement.
|
Widgets vs Cheating