Combat Rtwp.

[Yonjuro]

Same probability of success = same results, so yes.

 

 

 If by 'result' you mean win vs. lose then yes, but the point is that there are a lot of equivalent game states (in terms of success probability. When you recognize this, you will find that these games don't have as many relevant differences in game state as you seem to think that they do.

 

In the case you described, assuming you use 6 characters, I think it makes a difference if the archer hit, if the archer does indeed hit,...

 

 In the real world, yes. In BG1, a game with rules about how attackers behave, no.

 

 Pulling a character back from the archer will get them killed faster. This is not a general statement about how the world works; this is a statement about how the the infinity game engine and character AI works in BG1 - the rules of the game. An optimal solution will not include charging an archer and deciding halfway that you should draw the character back - ever.

 

 Sending a second character into melee could be a good option (or sending in a healer or, once your melee character has reached the archer, using a healing potion), you may wish to pause after the hit to give an order to the second character,  but once you've made the decision to attack the archer the cost of changing it is always higher (and stopping to quaff a potion before reaching the archer is always strictly a worse decision than doing it after reaching the archer). Again, this not true in general; it is true in the infinity game engine and rules it plays by for BG1; in particular, how ranged vs. melee attacks work. 

[Waterd]

Iuoco. I have nothing important to say to your post, im not ignoring it.

 

No, pulling a character back from the acher will not get them killed faster, is pretty easy to get them out of the acher range and make them focus another target, Ive done it all the time in IWD2.

 

Btw the results are not win vs loss, is % of sucess, our EV of winning. so yeah if you got with a move 95% of winning and with another 95% of winning, they are for all purposes of analyzing how optimal the result  are, the same result. Is hard to believe though that in a game so complex as these, is even possible to get to two game states with exactly identical expected win ratio. unless those are 0% or 100%, in which the game is either impossible or so easy that is not a game anymore.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Waterd

[Iucounu]

Cheers, that's a good crossover for me (no sarcasm intended)

[Yonjuro]

 

No, pulling a character back from the acher will not get them killed faster, is pretty easy to get them out of the acher range and make them focus another target, Ive done it all the time in IWD2.

 

 I agree that if you are near the outside of the archer's range then pulling back is viable.

 

 In this specific example (which I see I didn't describe in enough detail), the positioning of the characters are such that pulling back from the archer will be always be the wrong thing to do. This fight starts after a dialog where your front line characters are too close to the archers to make that a viable tactic. Or, rather, if you are using this tactic you will have positioned them that way on purpose to make it easy to engage the archers.

 

Is hard to believe though that in a game so complex as these, is even possible to get to two game states with exactly identical expected win ratio. unless those are 0% or 100%, in which the game is either impossible or so easy that is not a game anymore.

 

 It shouldn't be hard to believe if you think about it. There are symmetries when you have enemies that are the same creature, the same level and equipped the same way. The IE games had a lot of these - four front line goblins with two goblin archers etc.. If you have two melee characters outflank the front line to attack the archers one archer is as good as another in terms of probability of success if the formation is also symmetrical.

 

 Note that if the formation isn't symmetrical, e.g. one archer is closer, the probabilities are clearly different but that makes the decisions easier.

[Lephys]

Waterd... your argument is inherently flawed. According to your line of reasoning, the optimal way to play would be to pause with infinite frequency. However:

 

A) The characters on the battlefield can't even act often enough to warrant consta-pausing, really (Sure, SOMEtimes you may need to pause to react to some things in quick succession, but, other times, nothing worth a calculated reaction may occur for 5+ seconds at a time.)

 

B) You're leaving out factors of optimization (as others have already touched on). The actual optimal way to play would include familiarizing yourself enough with the game and mechanics, enemies, attacks, etc., such that your need to pause in order to keep up with optimal command delivery would be significantly reduced.

 

What you're saying is a bit like saying "The optimal way to drive is to go as slow as humanly possible, so that you can always react to everything." However, the optimal way to drive includes reaching your destination on-time, as well as not-causing disruptions in the flow of much-faster-traffic all around you by being all-but-stopped on the other side of a hill.

 

Besides... how would you even solve this "problem" with pausing? Just make it real time without pause? "Need to use the restroom? NO PAUSING FOR YOU! Did your child just spill something in the kitchen? TOO BAD!"

[Waterd]

a) There may be times where is nothing is happening, sure, there is also lots of times where something happens every fractions of a second for several seconds.

 

b) Knowing all that would not reduce the need to pause, I don´t know how you get to that.

 

Driving is not a game, so you can analyze optimal play in driving, it makes no sense. In the instances where driving is a skill tested in a game (like in a real race) going as slow as possible will make you lose vs other racers.

 

You can´t define optimal way to drive, since optimal needs to reference a goal. GENERALLY people drive to save time. So if you wanted to analyze how to minimize the amount of time to reach certain destination by driving, thus driving slowly would not help. 

 

The ingame goal is not to finish the game as fast as possible, if it were you had a point. But it´s not, so moot point.

 

I think how I would solve the problem is irrelevant to the topic so far, i could still, for academic curiosity try to answer that.

 

Possible solutions other than just inherently changing the system to Turn based or purely real time

A) Redesign the game around non controlled pause. So the system pauses itself everytime X event happen. I proposed in one of the first posts that it should only pause when a character have an action to make and you can only give orders to that character. (ideally also you have certain time controllers to control how much time you have to give the orders, but that is a sideline topic)

B) Create pause as a resource, pauses are something you gain per combat, or per x seconds or in some way, and you can only pause that number of times, you may even stack them in certain quantities etc.

C) put realife timelimits to the game, so real life time have an effect ingame, so pausing will make you lose time and thus drive you off your goal. this also has the benefit of solving the exploration problems. Though for several reasons that are long to detail, for this particular game Im against using real life time as an ingame goal (though it´s better than the actual state of infinite pauses)

 

This is independent of outside of the game, quality of experiences of pause. You can create this second type of pause where you can´t assign orders, and even black out the screen, however this is not necessary really as long as it´s labeled as a convenience pause, if you want to cheat you can, it´s ok as long as it´s clear that you are acting outside the game rules when you are pausing the game this way and it´s only there for life convenience pauses.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Waterd

[Azrael Ultima]

C) put realife timelimits to the game, so real life time have an effect ingame, so pausing will make you lose time and thus drive you off your goal. this also has the benefit of solving the exploration problems. Though for several reasons that are long to detail, for this particular game Im against using real life time as an ingame goal (though it´s better than the actual state of infinite pauses)

Why do you keep assuming that the player is willing to spend any arbitrary amount of time on playing the game, in chunks of arbitrary length?

 

 

Players might not have the fastest time possible as their goal, but they generally do have a limit on how much time they are willing to spend on any one task. Most people also have a hard limit on how much time they can spend in a single session.

 

Your solution is mathematically correct, but since it assumes absurd premises, the result is also absurd.

Time is always a resource, and always limited.

[Waterd]

It doesn´t matter of the player is willing or not. When you analyze optimal play, WILL of the player is not something you account for, is irrelevant.

 

I already explained in two posts the absurdity of using real life time resource as ingame resource.

[Lephys]

a) There may be times where is nothing is happening, sure, there is also lots of times where something happens every fractions of a second for several seconds.

I'm not sure where you're getting "lots." For one thing, it's ambiguous. For another, it's inaccurate, even if taken to mean "quite a great number of times."

 

b) Knowing all that would not reduce the need to pause, I don´t know how you get to that.

I don't know how to explain to you how factors affect the need to pause other than "did something occur that I COULD pause in response to?", so perhaps we're at an impasse.

 

Driving is not a game, so you can analyze optimal play in driving, it makes no sense. In the instances where driving is a skill tested in a game (like in a real race) going as slow as possible will make you lose vs other racers.

Doesn't matter. "Optimal" doesn't care if you're dealing with a game, or an imaginary scenario in your mind, or what. It just cares if there is a goal, and if there are actions and factors affecting the completion of that goal. Which there are in driving.

 

You can´t define optimal way to drive, since optimal needs to reference a goal. GENERALLY people drive to save time. So if you wanted to analyze how to minimize the amount of time to reach certain destination by driving, thus driving slowly would not help.

Sure you can. In driving, in general, the goal is to get somewhere. If the goal is simply the act of driving (a joyride, if you will), then you've already accomplished it, leaving nothing for optimization. So, we're talking about what's actually applicable to the original reference; PoE combat and pausing. Driving's goal is to reach a destination. Combat's goal is to achieve combat victory.

 

Anywho, in driving, even if the goal is to get to your destination as quickly as possible, that still doesn't mean "the faster you drive, the better," or that driving slowly isn't prudent at all. If there's a sharp curve, and you drive rather speedily, you could wind up out of commission, and never reach your destination. If there's traffic, you have to adjust what you're doing to account for the actions of the vehicles around you.

 

Which, incidentally, brings me to an interesting observation. In video game combat, you claim that pausing essentially as often as you can is optimal, for the purposes of reacting to everything that's happening around you. But, I present you with a road trip example, and you suggest that there wouldn't be any reason, whatsoever, not to just go balls-to-the-wall and complete your goal as aggressively as possible. You're contradicting yourself.

 

That, and you're still blatantly ignoring all the present factors. The optimal way to just complete one combat encounter is meaningless in a vacuum, since it's always going to be in the context of using your limited free time in the day to play the game, with the ultimate goal of playing through the entire game. So, taking a year just to get through the whole game, to most people, would not be optimal. If that's optimal to you, then splendid. But, that doesn't make it absolute.

 

 

The ingame goal is not to finish the game as fast as possible, if it were you had a point. But it´s not, so moot point.

But it is to finish it faster than as-slowly-as-possible. So I still have a point. Just not the one you marked moot and deemed the only possible point.

 

Possible solutions other than just inherently changing the system to Turn based or purely real time

A) Redesign the game around non controlled pause. So the system pauses itself everytime X event happen. I proposed in one of the first posts that it should only pause when a character have an action to make and you can only give orders to that character. (ideally also you have certain time controllers to control how much time you have to give the orders, but that is a sideline topic)

B) Create pause as a resource, pauses are something you gain per combat, or per x seconds or in some way, and you can only pause that number of times, you may even stack them in certain quantities etc.

C) put realife timelimits to the game, so real life time have an effect ingame, so pausing will make you lose time and thus drive you off your goal. this also has the benefit of solving the exploration problems. Though for several reasons that are long to detail, for this particular game Im against using real life time as an ingame goal (though it´s better than the actual state of infinite pauses)

You still don't seem to realize that there's absolutely no point in limiting pausing. Pausing every .0003 seconds doesn't gain me anything. I can't even process what's happened in that amount of time. Also, leaving the game paused for 7 days straight doesn't gain me anything, as I STILL only get to issue the exact same quantity of orders and deal with the exact same game-time actions and responses. You said an alternative would be to make the the game turn-based, but that doesn't change anything, either, since, by your line of reasoning, the optimal way to play a turn-based game is to take an infinite amount of time considering things.

 

I'm sorry, but your reasoning is flawed, because you're ignoring entire factors (such as time/speed in efficiency -- even if your goal isn't to completely minimize time -- or the fact that real life time has consequences in real life no matter what, and that you can't spend game time without spending real-life time).

 

If you think it isn't, then more power to you. I'm just sharing the info. You can do with it as you please.

[Waterd]

But, I present you with a road trip example, and you suggest that there wouldn't be any reason, whatsoever, not to just go balls-to-the-wall and complete your goal as aggressively as possible.

 

Where did you present me with a road trip example and i answered that?

 

 The optimal way to just complete one combat encounter is meaningless in a vacuum, since it's always going to be in the context of using your limited free time in the day to play the game, with the ultimate goal of playing through the entire game. So, taking a year just to get through the whole game, to most people, would not be optimal. 

 

 

I just answered to this argument several times. The goal of the game is defined by the game, not the player. The moment the you define the goal then you become the game designer.

If the goal of the game doesn´t involve time in anyway, and ingame time is not a resource, you can just add time as a value just because in your life it´s convenient. IF YOU DO that, then you have become the game designer, and the software a toy. 

We are no longer talking about the same game, or even a game anymore.

If you take 1 hour 1 year 10 years or 100 years to finish the game. The GAME doesn´t care in anyway, doesn´t account it, and it´s not used to define in anyway the score or success of the ingame goal.

You can talk how it affects your life, but you can´t talk about how it affects the game state, because it doesn´t.

 

Btw, read my argument of wealth and crystals in starcraft of why also is a terrible idea to use real life resources as ingame resource.

 

So accounting for real life time, as long as the ingame goal doesn´t. 

When I say optimal play (that is the use of optimal play in most models of decisions making theories but, whatever let´s imagine for a second i came up with an invented definition, i have zero interest to discuss what the different fields use as definition)

When I say optimal play, I mean the play the maximize your chances of success, using the goals defined by the game. There is a failure state and winning state. Optimal play are those that maximize your chances that your run ends in a winning state.

 

 

Pausing every .0003 seconds doesn't gain me anything.

 

 

Pausing after every event does

 

Also, leaving the game paused for 7 days straight doesn't gain me anything, as I STILL only get to issue the exact same quantity of orders and deal with the exact same game-time actions and responses. 

 

 

You are just implying that having more time in the clock on chess doesn´t gain you anything. That a player with a 10 minute in the clock is in the sam esituation than a player with 2 hours in the clock. That a match with top players will have the same results on average when a player has 1 hour in the clock and the other 10 hour in the clock.

You can say Something that is known to be false ¨Yes, the result on average will be the same¨ or acknowledge that is true and then it contradicts the follwoing comment as a valid argument on hose pauses and times don´t gain you anything.

 

 I STILL only get to issue the exact same quantity of orders and deal with the exact same game-time actions and responses.

 

Going on

 

You said an alternative would be to make the the game turn-based, but that doesn't change anything, either, since, by your line of reasoning, the optimal way to play a turn-based game is to take an infinite amount of time considering things.

 

It seems you did follow the logic. Yes, indeed. Which is why turn based games need to have clocks. But i want to deal with a problem at a time.

 

time/speed efficiency is only relevant if it´s part of the goal, when thinking about optimal play, otherwise is irrelevant. My goal is NOT AT ALL minimize time, because that´s not the game goal, 

 

[gkathellar]

OP, here's the big thing - you're making these broad assertions about how RTwP gameplay goes, despite saying in your opening post you've mostly ignored RTwP games. A lot of the people you're talking with are veterans of these types of games. On this subject, at least they know more than you (and I am one of them).

 

Regardless of your hypothetical view of optimal gameplay, in reality, part of RTwP gameplay is learning to quickly evaluate events, differentiate significant ones from insignificant ones, make decisions quickly, and continue play relatively unimpeded - unless something genuinely puzzling comes up, which is the point.

 

tl;dr play BG2 vanilla, and then w/Tactics + Ascension installed, then get back to us

 

a) There may be times where is nothing is happening, sure, there is also lots of times where something happens every fractions of a second for several seconds.

 

Protip: This is what paying attention and/or setting autopause features is for.

Edited September 17, 2014 by gkathellar

[Waterd]

I don´t get what i get from playing BG2 with those mods.

[Lephys]

Where did you present me with a road trip example and i answered that?

I talked about driving. And you said that, if time were a factor in the goal for driving, then driving slowly wouldn't be a good choice at all. I then pointed out that driving involves knowing when to slow down, because if you perform certain actions too quickly, you don't arrive at your destination at all.

 

You drive on a road, and a duration of travel (while driving) is known as a trip. Hence, "road trip" describing the example.

 

I just answered to this argument several times. The goal of the game is defined by the game, not the player. The moment the you define the goal then you become the game designer.

If the goal of the game doesn´t involve time in anyway, and ingame time is not a resource, you can just add time as a value just because in your life it´s convenient. IF YOU DO that, then you have become the game designer, and the software a toy. 

We are no longer talking about the same game, or even a game anymore.

If you take 1 hour 1 year 10 years or 100 years to finish the game. The GAME doesn´t care in anyway, doesn´t account it, and it´s not used to define in anyway the score or success of the ingame goal.

You can talk how it affects your life, but you can´t talk about how it affects the game state, because it doesn´t.

You're arbitrarily divorcing the human existence from the playing of a game, as if it's not going to be a human, complete with human needs, psychology, finite living duration, etc., who's playing the game.

 

You know what? A timer doesn't care about time, either. It just counts down to 0. The person USING the timer cares about the actual passage of time.

 

There are plenty of aspects of video gameplay that are beyond the scope of the specific rules of the game. Besides, according to your overly simplified definition of "who's the designer, here?", anything optional in any game ever instantly makes the player into the designer. The game doesn't care if you perform an optional task, or refrain from performing it. So, since you get to choose, you're designing the rules of the game. No you aren't. The rules are still there. The rules dictate what your choices are, and then you choose.

 

You're confusing what the game cares about and doesn't care about with somehow going outside the rules of the game. Just because you make up some of your own rules doesn't mean you're breaching the boundary of what constitutes the game. If I'm playing soccer, and I decide to dance around on the field, that's neither breaking any rules, NOR gaining me anything points or advantage within the soccer game itself. And yet, I cannot dance on the soccer field in the middle of a soccer game except by playing in a soccer match at the time. So, my dancing on the field is a part of the playing of that soccer match.

 

A whole game doesn't transform into a toy just because you can play with things that aren't expressly structured for play by the game's code. That's what you're not getting. Yes, the aspect is very much like playing with a toy, but that's kind of the point. Humans can play with something as if it were a toy, WHILE playing a structured ruleset. Simultaneously. Just like they can care about time, even though the game doesn't.

 

I don't know how else to explain it. You're right, but only on one thing or the other at a time. You're failing to consider all the factors simultaneously. Human optimization does not magically discount human factors. A game, by definition, is designed specifically to be played by a human. Thus, divorcing humanity from what is and is not the game is pretty moot.

 

Design some games to be played by AIs or robots, and you'll be absolutely correct. Until then...

 

When I say optimal play, I mean the play the maximize your chances of success, using the goals defined by the game. There is a failure state and winning state. Optimal play are those that maximize your chances that your run ends in a winning state.

Except, once again, people are the ones playing the game. People inherently prize betterment and challenges that may not exist within the game structure itself. But, most importantly, one person may be able to easily process everything without pausing, and another may need to pause much more often. You cannot dictate how often an unspecified person must pause to achieve an optimal winning state.

 

 

Pausing after every event does

False. It potentially does. You cannot say with certainty that having paused after every single event would produce a different outcome than letting any two events occur back-to-back without pausing. Again, you're arbitrarily assigning absolute values in a vacuum. You are confusing potential with absolution. 

 

You are just implying that having more time in the clock on chess doesn´t gain you anything. That a player with a 10 minute in the clock is in the sam esituation than a player with 2 hours in the clock.

Not at all. I'm saying that "more time = improvement" does not hold true. It's relative. More than what? More than what is necessary.

 

Or, to put it another way, infinite time does not gain me anything over finite time, unless there are infinite options for me to consider. Which there are not. Again, you're trying apply the same value to any given duration of time, such any number of times a single unit of time is always better than any lesser amount of time. This is false.

 

It seems you did follow the logic. Yes, indeed. Which is why turn based games need to have clocks.

That doesn't exactly follow. Could you explain why turn-based games need to have clocks? Is it because someone might actually take infinite time? I don't understand. Are you suggesting that players should not e able to expend effort that doesn't get them an advantage? The game should only allow the player to do that which definitively benefits the player? Because, why else would you want to prevent someone from taking more time than they actually need to make a decision?

 

time/speed efficiency is only relevant if it´s part of the goal, when thinking about optimal play, otherwise is irrelevant. My goal is NOT AT ALL minimize time, because that´s not the game goal,

Lastly, there is more than just a binary set of options here. It's not "either time must be absolutely minimized, or it doesn't matter at all." Time can be a factor without needing to be minimized.

 

Or, to put it another way, the absence of "minimize time" as a goal does not equal the presence of "maximize time" as a goal. So, if infinite time is not useful or ideal, then time still matters, without being minimized.

[Dasick]

Ok, you guys seem to be ganging up on WaterD because he's talking about playing the game in the least fun way imaginable. Which is perfectly understandable - which is why, as he mentioned, he would not be getting this game if it means he would have to play it like this. 

 

You can say that "oh you don't HAVE to play that way", but see, here is the thing. Take the limited rests system. In any game with rest, I could just make up a rule and say "i have limited rests between" cities and play any RPG like that, say Morrowind. Why is it then will Eternity have this system? Why are there brilliant dudes thinking about this stuff and programmers making it happen and UI people doing UI to support this?? When you can just impose this rule on yourself and have a blast! You can impose this rule on any RPG and have a blast, why would I buy Eternity for this?? Why install a mod to balance things or make a challenge for yourself when you can just houserule those away with some roleplaying and cheat console use??

 

We know the answer to this. It's because the game is about challenge. And challenge comes from limitations. Think about the children's game Floor Is Lava. How much fun can be had with friends just by inserting a simple limitation - you cant touch the floor, you have to get across the room. This is what game design is, finding those fun limitations. Just how much time is the most fun to spend thinking about each decision? I don't know! I've never played this game, and even when I would, I don't know this game nearly as well as the designers do. They're professionals at this, they have years of experience finding fun limitations. I would gladly pay 60 or 100 dollars for someone to think all of these things through and let me buy the most fun way to play the game. And let's be honest, this is something Obsidian does consistently, so you're probably into it.

 

Waterd has pointed out a very critical question that is central to the game, but has not been answered - how much time is the most fun to spend thinking about decisions? I can pause every 0.5 seconds and take hours to make my decision, discuss them with other people as well. But that wouldn't be fun. And it would make every combat scenario trivial and devoid of risk of loosing. And I can't just not use the pause feature because I would be missing out on tons of features. There is an answer, possibly in the form of a bullet time system akin to Max Payne (I believe certain mods for FO:NV add this as well, using AP). The question still remains about how much bullet time is optimal, how it is gained, if different actions consume different amounts, and how your build affects it. I wouldn't know the answer to any of these questions. Which would be the most balanced? Which would lead to the most challenge? Which will lead to the most dynamic playthroughs? etc etc. These are questions the designers can answer to make for a kick-ass game. They would probably even come up with something I would never think of. 

[Waterd]

I talked about driving. And you said that, if time were a factor in the goal for driving, then driving slowly wouldn't be a good choice at all. I then pointed out that driving involves knowing when to slow down, because if you perform certain actions too quickly, you don't arrive at your destination at all.

 

Really you did not answer my question. You pointed to a blank space.

 

Besides, according to your overly simplified definition of "who's the designer, here?", anything optional in any game ever instantly makes the player into the designer

 

It depends, if the options are DESIGNED by the designer then he is the designer, these have to be extremely discrete options though, and generally the designer needs to specify the effect on the game and know why he is adding that option. Otherwise yes, it gives the player the job to be a designer.

 

Based on the rest of this paragraph it seems you are missing all my explanation on what´s a game and what isn´t and the definitions we are working on here, I won´t repeat myself.

You also proceed to do strawmans like talking about human optimization that are irrelevant to the topic.

 

 one person may be able to easily process everything without pausing, and another may need to pause much more often. You cannot dictate how often an unspecified person must pause to achieve an optimal winning state.

 

You are suggesting that the person that did achieve optimal winning chance by not pausing can´t achieve that by pausing it? unless you are suggesting that, your point is moot.

 

False. It potentially does. You cannot say with certainty that having paused after every single event would produce a different outcome than letting any two events occur back-to-back without pausing. Again, you're arbitrarily assigning absolute values in a vacuum. You are confusing potential with absolution. 

 

If it potentially does, it does. It doesn´t matter the final result only the expectation of the result. We can´t know the future, we can only make predictions of the future, so the only result that matters to us when we do an action is what was the average expected value of the action. it doesn´t matter what actually happens after we do the action, it matters what on average is expected to happen after we do the action. That is how optimal play is analyzed when information is incomplete.

 

Or, to put it another way, infinite time does not gain me anything over finite time

 

Ok, you are wrong. This is just a fundamental mistake that would require me an essay to explain you how you are wrong, Since i wont i guess our conversation is over. It is known fact that over infinite time, all problems with a solution can be solved. And yet the only thing that stop us from solving the problems is that our time isn´t infinite, if you don´t understand this really your mistake is so fundamental that a few paragraphs won´t help you.

 

For that same reason it doesn´t serve any purpose that i explain you why turn based games need to have clocks since you don´t understand the concept of how time makes problems easier to solve.

 

 there is more than just a binary set of options here. It's not "either time must be absolutely minimized, or it doesn't matter at all." 

 

 

 

You are wrong again for exactly the same concept, yes it´s binary, or it should be minimized or it´s irrelevant.

[Lephys]

You also proceed to do strawmans like talking about human optimization that are irrelevant to the topic.

False. I proceed to reference human optimization to point out how the topic of "what's optimal play if we disregard the human presence that constitutes 'play'" is irrelevant to the real world, where human optimization is omnipresent. It would be a strawman if I were arguing directly against human-less optimization by arguing against human optimization, which I am not doing.

 

Why does no one understand what a strawman is?

 

Anwyho, it's clear that no amount of effort on my part is going to facilitate your comprehension of what it is I (and oodles of other folk) are saying to you, so, unfortunately, any further discussion between you and me is rather pointless at this point.

 

Clearly, optimal game play (which requires a human interacting with a video game) doesn't involve humans. I concede this truth. Congratulations.

 

You are wrong again for exactly the same concept, yes it´s binary, or it should be minimized or it´s irrelevant.

False. A car's engine requires that its temperature not exceed a certain measurement. However, anything below that measurement is fine. Thus, the temperature matters, but does not need to be minimized, as every absent degree of temperature does not benefit the engine. In fact, if it ran cold, then people driving in the winter time wouldn't have any interior heat, as that comes from the engine.

 

There are more options than "either something has to be as low as possible, or it's of no consequence." Think what you will, though.

[Waterd]

You keep bringing things that have nothing to do with optimal play, again i dont want to respond to strawmans.

[Lephys]

Yes. Like humans. So little to do with optimal play... of a game... by humans.

 

And, once again, at worst, my arguments are simply incorrect. That doesn't make them strawmen. Look up the definition. I have to be intentionally arguing against not-your-argument, and claiming that it defeats your actual argument.

 

Farewell, good sir.

[Waterd]

Yes you are intentionally arguing about how optimal certain actions are to human goals. Which is irrelevant.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Waterd

[gkathellar]

I don´t get what i get from playing BG2 with those mods.

 

Actual, genuine knowledge of what you're talking about (rather than a set of assumptions based on no personal experience or active observation).

 

You keep bringing things that have nothing to do with optimal play, again i dont want to respond to strawmans.

 

Hiyooooo!

[Waterd]

 genuine knowledge of what you're talking about

 

I already have it. I already played BG1 and IWD2

Edited September 19, 2014 by Waterd

[Waterd]

how much time is the most fun to spend thinking about decisions? I can pause every 0.5 seconds and take hours to make my decision, discuss them with other people as well. But that wouldn't be fun. And it would make every combat scenario trivial and devoid of risk of loosing. And I can't just not use the pause feature because I would be missing out on tons of features. There is an answer, possibly in the form of a bullet time system akin to Max Payne (I believe certain mods for FO:NV add this as well, using AP). The question still remains about how much bullet time is optimal, how it is gained, if different actions consume different amounts, and how your build affects it. I wouldn't know the answer to any of these questions. Which would be the most balanced? Which would lead to the most challenge? Which will lead to the most dynamic playthroughs?

I agree those are all questions a designer should be asking themselves. 

Edited September 19, 2014 by Waterd

[gkathellar]

 

 genuine knowledge of what you're talking about

 

I already have it. I already played BG1 and IWD2

 

 

Limited sample size consisting of easy games? Niiice.

[Waterd]

If the games are harder how is that gonna help, before i paused non stop now im gonna pause less? you are just wasting my time. 

Edited September 19, 2014 by Waterd

[Azrael Ultima]

It doesn´t matter of the player is willing or not. When you analyze optimal play, WILL of the player is not something you account for, is irrelevant.

Except your problem never actually occurs during play, so your solution is useless.

 

You aren't analysing optimal play(which is the best achievable), you're analysing perfect play(the best possible), and you're ignoring several severe limitations to that to boot.

 

Optimal play needs to make sense in realistic limitations. Yours doesn't. Therefore, it isn't optimal. You can't just redefine what optimal means and then complain that others don't follow you.