| 1 |
I think this is going to be more argumentative than necessary, but I don't know what else to write. Since you said you will write about disagreements then agreements, I will take everything up to "I agree" in your last paragraph as something you think you disagree with me about.
|
1 |
I think this is going to be more argumentative than necessary, but I don't know what else to write. Since you said you will write about disagreements then agreements, I will take everything up to "I agree" in your last paragraph as something you think you disagree with me about.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
[q]It happens much more often to me that I don't dodge a projectile that I could have absolutely dodged with my human dodge abilities if I had not been busy elsewhere than that I want a special nuance between dodging and not dodging. Even if I want a nuance, it will only become difficult in the case of strong autododging, but that's already the case currently if I try to dodge Buoy shots manually with Reavers compared to a fight command. In the case of weak autododging, I can still move manually in the rare case that I really want a nuance. Therefore I think having nuances is mostly a weak artificial argument.[/q]
|
3 |
[q]It happens much more often to me that I don't dodge a projectile that I could have absolutely dodged with my human dodge abilities if I had not been busy elsewhere than that I want a special nuance between dodging and not dodging. Even if I want a nuance, it will only become difficult in the case of strong autododging, but that's already the case currently if I try to dodge Buoy shots manually with Reavers compared to a fight command. In the case of weak autododging, I can still move manually in the rare case that I really want a nuance. Therefore I think having nuances is mostly a weak artificial argument.[/q]
|
| 4 |
Up until "Therefore..." you seem to be summarising my post, with the addition of concrete examples based on you as a player. I don't doubt that there is variation among players in skill at dodging Buoys and desire for tactical nuance. That said, I would be wary about so strongly claiming that you want as little nuance as you imply. Sources of fun are tricky to pin down, even under introspection. Also, don't read too much into how Buoy and Reaver are currently implemented, doing that would amount to assuming that the game as it exists is perfect.
|
4 |
Up until "Therefore..." you seem to be summarising my post, with the addition of concrete examples based on you as a player. I don't doubt that there is variation among players in skill at dodging Buoys and desire for tactical nuance. That said, I would be wary about so strongly claiming that you want as little nuance as you imply. Sources of fun are tricky to pin down, even under introspection. Also, don't read too much into how Buoy and Reaver are currently implemented, doing that would amount to assuming that the game as it exists is perfect.
|
| 5 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 6 |
I don't see where the last sentence comes from. [i]What[/i] is 'having nuance' a weak 'artificial' argument for/against? My post was mostly about full strength dodge AI. The relevant chain of logic is:
|
6 |
I don't see where the last sentence comes from. [i]What[/i] is 'having nuance' a weak 'artificial' argument for/against? My post was mostly about full strength dodge AI. The relevant chain of logic is:
|
| 7 |
* A lot of people like the tactical nuance in ZK.
|
7 |
* A lot of people like the tactical nuance in ZK.
|
| 8 |
* Tactical nuance requires some minimum command bandwidth from player to game.
|
8 |
* Tactical nuance requires some minimum command bandwidth from player to game.
|
| 9 |
* Manual Move commands provide this bandwidth, special flavours of Attack Move do not.
|
9 |
* Manual Move commands provide this bandwidth, special flavours of Attack Move do not.
|
| 10 |
* Strong dodge AI makes manual Move commands obsolete compared to potential new flavours of Attack Move.
|
10 |
* Strong dodge AI makes manual Move commands obsolete compared to potential new flavours of Attack Move.
|
| 11 |
* Therefore strong dodge AI removes tactical nuance.
|
11 |
* Therefore strong dodge AI removes tactical nuance.
|
| 12 |
* Therefore strong dodge AI would be bad for the game.
|
12 |
* Therefore strong dodge AI would be bad for the game.
|
| 13 |
I don't see you substantially interacting with any of the steps here. Are you saying the argument is 'artificial' in the strawman sense? In which case, I wrote:
|
13 |
I don't see you substantially interacting with any of the steps here. Are you saying the argument is 'artificial' in the strawman sense? In which case, I wrote:
|
| 14 |
[q]Also, I'm not saying anyone wants to make manual dodging obsolete, but I'm trying to build a theory behind what to do here, and it should have something in it that informs where to draw the line.[/q]
|
14 |
[q]Also, I'm not saying anyone wants to make manual dodging obsolete, but I'm trying to build a theory behind what to do here, and it should have something in it that informs where to draw the line.[/q]
|
| 15 |
Essentially, I expect people writing dodge AI will try to make it as strong as possible in the absence of any other guidance. This is my impression from previous threads.
|
15 |
Essentially, I expect people writing dodge AI will try to make it as strong as possible in the absence of any other guidance. This is my impression from previous threads.
|
| 16 |
\n
|
16 |
\n
|
| 17 |
Are we actually just in the following situation?
|
17 |
Are we actually just in the following situation?
|
| 18 |
* I perceive you pulling hard in a [i]direction[/i] along a policy continuum.
|
18 |
* I perceive you pulling hard in a [i]direction[/i] along a policy continuum.
|
| 19 |
* Therefore I think you want the most extreme end of that continuum.
|
19 |
* Therefore I think you want the most extreme end of that continuum.
|
| 20 |
* Therefore I write posts about how the extreme end of that continuum is bad.
|
20 |
* Therefore I write posts about how the extreme end of that continuum is bad.
|
| 21 |
* You see this as a stawman of your real position, which is a relatively small step from the current policy.
|
21 |
* You see this as a stawman of your real position, which is a relatively small step from the current policy.
|
| 22 |
Your last paragraph seems to imply that this is the situation. If it is, then please check that you are not accidentally trying to prove more than you need. I think I am much more amenable to being argued to a local policy change than being argued (seemingly) arbitrarily far in a policy direction.
|
22 |
Your last paragraph seems to imply that this is the situation. If it is, then please check that you are not accidentally trying to prove more than you need. I think I am much more amenable to being argued to a local policy change than being argued (seemingly) arbitrarily far in a policy direction.
|
| 23 |
\n
|
23 |
\n
|
| 24 |
[q]The stronger though less rational argument against autododging...[/q]
|
24 |
[q]The stronger though less rational argument against autododging...[/q]
|
| 25 |
That
isn't
what
'rational'
means,
and
my
post
is
not
an
exhaustive
collection
of
arguments
about
dodging.
I
did
not
use
fun
as
much
as
possible.
|
25 |
That
isn't
what
'rational'
means,
and
my
post
is
not
an
exhaustive
collection
of
arguments
about
dodging.
I
have
barely
scratched
the
surface
of
arguments
that
can
be
made
from
the
perspective
of
"fun",
but
these
are
trickier
to
make.
|
| 26 |
\n
|
26 |
\n
|
| 27 |
[q]This gave me the random idea of a building that improves autododging in the mid-lategame but I'm very unsure about that.[/q]
|
27 |
[q]This gave me the random idea of a building that improves autododging in the mid-lategame but I'm very unsure about that.[/q]
|
| 28 |
I am very sure that it is against the spirit of ZK to tie unit intelligence to assets within the game.
|
28 |
I am very sure that it is against the spirit of ZK to tie unit intelligence to assets within the game.
|
| 29 |
\n
|
29 |
\n
|
| 30 |
[q]I currently don't know a case where the principle that balancing by APM is bad would be violated. If the game has a possible exploit that only works in one frame every 10s, I would actually call this dysfunctional balance. If on the other hand, the game as a whole becomes dysfunctional for one frame every 10s for example by freezing, then this does not make balance dysfunctional.[/q]I was just giving an example. My claim was: that "balancing by APM is bad." does not follow from (forall [speeds] "the balance of a strategy game should not become dysfunctional by playing it at [speed]."). I stand by my counterexample of nobody caring if the lower speed turns out to be 10s a frame. Or to put it another way, I think statements that hinge on the truth value of "the balance of a strategy game should not become dysfunctional by playing it at 10s a frame." are irrelevant.
|
30 |
[q]I currently don't know a case where the principle that balancing by APM is bad would be violated. If the game has a possible exploit that only works in one frame every 10s, I would actually call this dysfunctional balance. If on the other hand, the game as a whole becomes dysfunctional for one frame every 10s for example by freezing, then this does not make balance dysfunctional.[/q]I was just giving an example. My claim was: that "balancing by APM is bad." does not follow from (forall [speeds] "the balance of a strategy game should not become dysfunctional by playing it at [speed]."). I stand by my counterexample of nobody caring if the lower speed turns out to be 10s a frame. Or to put it another way, I think statements that hinge on the truth value of "the balance of a strategy game should not become dysfunctional by playing it at 10s a frame." are irrelevant.
|
| 31 |
\n
|
31 |
\n
|
| 32 |
[q]I expected the latency argument and have therefore made a variant that does not suffer from latency already months ago. I call it "Coherent Random Dodge". This is the one that does not see any projectiles. So I guess this should be ok.[/q]
|
32 |
[q]I expected the latency argument and have therefore made a variant that does not suffer from latency already months ago. I call it "Coherent Random Dodge". This is the one that does not see any projectiles. So I guess this should be ok.[/q]
|
| 33 |
Bluntly, I don't think that it is possible to truly deal with the latency issue of widgets. On a practical level, I shudder at the thought of maintaining code that approaches better-and-better latency handling. Also, not seeing any projectiles is not quite the end goal either.
|
33 |
Bluntly, I don't think that it is possible to truly deal with the latency issue of widgets. On a practical level, I shudder at the thought of maintaining code that approaches better-and-better latency handling. Also, not seeing any projectiles is not quite the end goal either.
|
New Dodge Widgets