Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
* * * * * 2 votes

FOTM lvl 80


  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

#151 Skibba

Skibba

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 28 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 10:41 AM

View PostThaddeuz, on 28 January 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

I have 3000 defense and 15k hp and i'm the ''tank'' of my group. I don't like when people have more defense than me, because i know i can survive and kite pretty much everything right now, so basically i take the agro and i want others to kill as fast as they could. A group with 2-3 player with stats like mines, and we probably won't be able to do some fractals (lack of DPS) and i still have +50% critical chance.

View PostEon Lilu, on 28 January 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

Sounds like were running similar builds that help the group alot more, cheers for the info, means I don't need to change my build up and now I know what to go for higher level fractals with ascended gear. Cheers.


Would you both mind sharing your build, armor choices, rune setups and weapons used please? (I know there's an element of swapping weapons depending on the encounter ahead of you, but I find that I have a primary, secondary and then a 3rd/4th set that I swap to on occasion)

I've just switched to 3 x knights (chest/legs/helm) 3 x berserker (boots/gloves/shoulder) knights rings/earing/neck all gemmed with berserker gems, 'soldier' back with berserker gem, and boon duration runes (2x water, 2 x monk, 2x sanctuary). The weapons are beserkers GS with accuracy sigil and beserkers scepter/focus with sigil of strength/accuracy sigil.

I've come from full knights with soldiers runes, but wanted to bring more dps to the group at the same time as bringing more support, hence the rune setup. I'm certainly finding myself more squishy now and wondered wanted to compare what I'm using to Guardian's in higher level Fractals.

Apologies for posting here. It's slightly off topic so feel free to PM me if you'd rather.

#152 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4794 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:06 AM

View PostThaddeuz, on 25 January 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

It's not the most profitable content. I can make far more gold in several other way.
Well, not the most profitable, but sufficiently profitable, then. For whatever definition of sufficient that you'd like.

View PostCepaCepa, on 25 January 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

Yes, seen from the hyper-reality standpoint, reward been scaled with difficulty = a belief in that hyper-reality, of course! It is a belief of myself, who have always believed that in MMORPG, or in almost ANY games, or in life in general, going through something more difficult will yield more reward at each corresponding layer of reality. I retain that belief when I start playing a game, so I expect to see reward being scaled with difficulty --- If ANet have informed me otherwise, I wouldn't have that expectation, but they have not, instead what I see is: reward gets increased with difficulty, just not by much. This is all fine with me because that expectation is only one of my many expectations as I go into fractals, and a very unimportant one --- But nevertheless, whenever a positive expectation is not met, no matter how small the expectation is, one would be disappointed. You brush it off mostly because there are bigger and more important expectations for you and those are indeed met. This is not to say that one wouldn't be expecting higher reward for more difficulty --- Certainly we are! The very fact that so many people are arguing about it, the very fact that people always link their loot in chat and wishing each other luck at Jade Maw means that we expect reward, and to different degree we expect to see reward scale with difficulty.

Just because the game didn't tell us something particularly doesn't mean it does not exist in one's hyper-reality. It is YOUR hyper-reality because the important thing is YOU, and YOU have beliefs that you bring into the game, such as rewards in life often correlates with difficulty. If everyone only believes what ANet have explicitly said while playing the game, or in other words programmed and adhere to rules solely and only when told by the rule makers, then what are we but programs? Without personal input that arrives from outside of the system, how is this system different from a single player game?
No. Absolutely not, under no circumstances, do you believe that in an MMO or in life in general the more difficult thing will bring the greater reward. That is completely illogical in any way whatsoever. There are literally tons of very difficult things that you could do all around you - I look around this room and I can literally think of 10 different and very difficult things, none of which would bring any reward whatsoever.
Breaking your left arm using only your right is a pretty difficult task yet totally unrewarding.

What you mean is that most rewards that are easy to get are already claimed, so that going through something difficult is the only remaining viable path to the reward you seek. Yet, of course, if you don't seek the reward, you have no reason to go through the difficult thing. In other words, the perception of the reward always happens before the perception of the challenge. It is only after perceiving the reward that you will weigh the challenge and determine that the difficulty involved is something you want to get involved with, or not.
You do not want a broken left arm, so you never even considered the challenge of breaking it.

The expectation you talk about is the one that the donkey has when he sees the carrot dangling from the stick. If he can just get the carrot, it will taste so good. If he just runs a little faster, it will taste even better, won't it? Of course reward is expected, but why is it? You claim to bring in the assumption from the outside, but where did you get it from? Other games, perhaps?

And yes, we are just programs lol. If you think that humans are anything but biological machines then I don't know why I am talking to you.

#153 FoxBat

FoxBat

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 3975 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:27 AM

View Postraspberry jam, on 30 January 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

And yes, we are just programs lol. If you think that humans are anything but biological machines then I don't know why I am talking to you.

Machines aren't always programs. When a program screws up, barring hardware errors, its because the logic of the instructions it is being fed is faulty. (A combination of the programmer's code and user input.) It is never truly the computer's "fault" that something screwed up, because it literally cannot do anything but what it is told.

While we have schools and militaries and propaganda other institutions that train humans to some extent, it takes much time and effort, and there are still lots of cases of deviation from what people are told to do. That can be things looked down on like crime or desertion, but it can also be things valued by said institutions like creativity and leadership. Even when doing what one is told, it's never as simple as always following what one or a handful of people have instructed (in this case, Anet) and taking nothing else into consideration.

Edited by FoxBat, 30 January 2013 - 09:28 AM.


#154 Elgareth

Elgareth

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 258 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:38 AM

View PostFoxBat, on 30 January 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

While we have schools and militaries and propaganda other institutions that train humans to some extent, it takes much time and effort, and there are still lots of cases of deviation from what people are told to do. That can be things looked down on like crime or desertion, but it can also be things valued by said institutions like creativity and leadership. Even when doing what one is told, it's never as simple as always following what one or a handful of people have instructed (in this case, Anet) and taking nothing else into consideration.

Just saying:
Humans ARE programs. Just that the behaviour can change through earliest memories and experiences (even before being born). Thus, we (currently) can't predict reactions. Oh and: There is no "free will", since everything one does is only a reaction on the environment, preset electrical impulses, going preset ways. We are just unable to properly predict them (yet), because no brain is the same. So yeah, we are programs. And remember that time when you thought "I want to eat that cookie now... but I won't do it cuz I got free will! Hah!"... no free will. Just a theoretically predictable reaction on something you experienced earlier in your life. (Maybe your girlfriend being happy that you left a cookie for her, maybe advertisments showing perfectly trained bodies...whatever)
You, just as a computer, literally cannot do anything but what your brain tells you. "You" can never decide basically, it's just your brain telling you: "Yeah you'll want to not eat that cookie even if you think you want to", while silently adding "because from my experience that will be better for you".

These deviations never come out of nothing. Go on :D

#155 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4794 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:58 AM

View PostFoxBat, on 30 January 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

Machines aren't always programs. When a program screws up, barring hardware errors, its because the logic of the instructions it is being fed is faulty. (A combination of the programmer's code and user input.) It is never truly the computer's "fault" that something screwed up, because it literally cannot do anything but what it is told.

While we have schools and militaries and propaganda other institutions that train humans to some extent, it takes much time and effort, and there are still lots of cases of deviation from what people are told to do. That can be things looked down on like crime or desertion, but it can also be things valued by said institutions like creativity and leadership. Even when doing what one is told, it's never as simple as always following what one or a handful of people have instructed (in this case, Anet) and taking nothing else into consideration.
Machines aren't always programs, but all programmable machines have programs... :P And a human is just a self-programming machine.
It's not as easy as doing what you're told to do. That isn't source code, it's actually just input to the self-learning function... Like everything else.

#156 Thaddeuz

Thaddeuz

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 561 posts
  • Location:Canada
  • Guild Tag:[TRAP]
  • Server:Crystal Desert

Posted 30 January 2013 - 01:56 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 30 January 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

Machines aren't always programs, but all programmable machines have programs... :P And a human is just a self-programming machine.
It's not as easy as doing what you're told to do. That isn't source code, it's actually just input to the self-learning function... Like everything else.

You could be right. But the human (and to some extend some animal) have some quality that the machine or program don't have.

- Sentience
- Self preservation
- Free Will

#157 Elgareth

Elgareth

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 258 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 02:07 PM

View PostThaddeuz, on 30 January 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

You could be right. But the human (and to some extend some animal) have some quality that the machine or program don't have.

- Sentience
- Self preservation
- Free Will

Sentience as in "I am myself"? Machines have that as well, called MAC-Adress in Networks ;-) Machines tell other Machines "Hello, I am 00-AB-CD-88-2A-FF, and I'm a Router", just as humans say "Hi, I am John Doe, and I'm a police officer"
Self preservation as in "Don't jump down that cliff"? Give a machine the input "Don't drive over cliffs that are more than 80m deep" and the ability to notice them, and it won't do it either (think for example Mars Rover). Just as you have to give children the input "Don't jump in that fire. It's hot"
Free will... see my above post. All we have is the illusion of free will, created by our brain, while in reality, all is a mere reaction on things around us. Empty white Room you sit in? Wait for X seconds, try to get out. If fail, wait another X Seconds, try again. If fail, overcome resulting bad feelings by crying/becoming angry (depending on how the input was in childhood/earlier phases), wait x seconds, repeat. :D Produce fake feeling of deciding for yourself, even though you are entirely driven by earlier experiences.

#158 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4794 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 02:08 PM

View PostThaddeuz, on 30 January 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

You could be right. But the human (and to some extend some animal) have some quality that the machine or program don't have.

- Sentience
- Self preservation
- Free Will
Self preservation can be programmed, and free will is an illusion. See Elgareth's post.

Sentience is just the ability to have subjective experiences. That is most likely a result of our brain being so complex. If that hypothesis is correct, which I find it most likely to me, then if you made a computer as complex as the human brain, it would be sentient as well.

#159 Thaddeuz

Thaddeuz

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 561 posts
  • Location:Canada
  • Guild Tag:[TRAP]
  • Server:Crystal Desert

Posted 30 January 2013 - 02:30 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 30 January 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

Self preservation can be programmed, and free will is an illusion. See Elgareth's post.

Sentience is just the ability to have subjective experiences. That is most likely a result of our brain being so complex. If that hypothesis is correct, which I find it most likely to me, then if you made a computer as complex as the human brain, it would be sentient as well.

True that maybe later in the future computer could achieve sentience but this is only a hypothesis. What is sentience is such a big question. For now only human achieved it, probably because we have the more complex brain. Could a computer reach that? Maybe, or maybe its now only about the complexity, the speed and the number of connection that matter. Maybe its a mix between that and chemical interaction. Maybe a computer with eventually reach that state, but maybe more speed is just not enough.

And if they does, could we still call them computer, machine or program?

I'm just saying that Human are not like program. Human just created program to imitate human and that maybe one day human will do such a kick ass job, that they will finally succeed.

#160 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4794 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 02:40 PM

View PostThaddeuz, on 30 January 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

True that maybe later in the future computer could achieve sentience but this is only a hypothesis. What is sentience is such a big question. For now only human achieved it, probably because we have the more complex brain. Could a computer reach that? Maybe, or maybe its now only about the complexity, the speed and the number of connection that matter. Maybe its a mix between that and chemical interaction. Maybe a computer with eventually reach that state, but maybe more speed is just not enough.

And if they does, could we still call them computer, machine or program?

I'm just saying that Human are not like program. Human just created program to imitate human and that maybe one day human will do such a kick ass job, that they will finally succeed.
Sentience isn't limited to humans. A dog is a sentient animal. Any being that can have subjective experiences is sentient by definition.
Speed is not enough. Massive parallel connectivity is more likely to be the key to sentience. And yes a parallel computer is a computer no matter what it can do. The question is once it is sentient, do we have the right to unplug it?

Humans are biological machines ran by a self-learning program that is encoded in the hardware itself. A remarkable thing indeed, but still a program. The realization that there is no magic in this world is the greatest thing we can possibly achieve.

#161 Coren2

Coren2

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 02:57 PM

View PostFenice_86, on 16 January 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:



Why not? It will man...
"Harder" content requires Build & Team optimization, the further you go, the more you'll need it

In the end builds and classes will be "removed" from the optimal team+build composition lvl by lvl... it's normal, it's always been like this in every game, in every situation of life, the more you go in depth the more you need specific feats, you cant change this.

The only thing you can do it's improve other classes but, than again, there will be always ONE better than OTHERS and EVERYONE will go for it

Maybe it will, doesn't mean it should be. I take it you're a warrior, guardian or mesmer, otherwise you wouldn't say those things.

this is why I shun fractals mostly, if the meta is 3 warriors a mesmer and a guardian and the others might as well say good night, why bother keeping the other.5 let's delete them from the game if they're.so bad.

#162 Thaddeuz

Thaddeuz

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 561 posts
  • Location:Canada
  • Guild Tag:[TRAP]
  • Server:Crystal Desert

Posted 30 January 2013 - 02:59 PM

I'm sorry your right. I didn't meant sentience (damn your science-fiction), i meant Sapience. The ability to act with judgment.

But raspberry, I'm with you with the human is not a magical thing from god and nothing will ever compare to it, etc.

I'm just saying that it took evolution about 3.5 millions of years to start from the first spark of life to end up to us (and we are probably not the best life can achieve). At this point, human can only try and hope to create something similar. Machine and program are merely an attempt to recreate the work of the universe (Don't see any god like nature here).

We human only know the nature of baryonic matter which represent only 4-5% of the universe. We have so much to learn. So i repeat that Human are not like machine, machine are only the attempt of human to recreate human.

If we get back to the Topic.


View PostCoren2, on 30 January 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

Maybe it will, doesn't mean it should be. I take it you're a warrior, guardian or mesmer, otherwise you wouldn't say those things.

this is why I shun fractals mostly, if the meta is 3 warriors a mesmer and a guardian and the others might as well say good night, why bother keeping the other.5 let's delete them from the game if they're.so bad.

I play with a Guardian, an Engineer and Rangers in fractal and they are all great. One of my partner in high level fractal play with his Thief and he save our ass a lot. I don't know if there is a perfect team.  But i played with all the profession in high level fractal and I always completed my runs. Its not the profession but the ability of the player with the profession that count.

Edited by Thaddeuz, 30 January 2013 - 03:04 PM.


#163 Fenice_86

Fenice_86

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 590 posts
  • Location:Italy
  • Guild Tag:[SYG]
  • Server:Whiteside Ridge

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:24 PM

View PostCoren2, on 30 January 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

Maybe it will, doesn't mean it should be. I take it you're a warrior, guardian or mesmer, otherwise you wouldn't say those things.

this is why I shun fractals mostly, if the meta is 3 warriors a mesmer and a guardian and the others might as well say good night, why bother keeping the other.5 let's delete them from the game if they're.so bad.

I'm ele, and i have only that char (beside a lvl 10 Ranger which i started making few days ago)

#164 Dark

Dark

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 567 posts
  • Profession:Ranger
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:33 PM

View PostShiren, on 16 January 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

This party composition is why I hate increasing the difficulties of dungeons the levels of this video. It pushes out creativity and diverse builds and play styles and punishes people for playing certain builds or classes. Sure not every build is going to be (or should be) viable, but I'm already getting kicked from several groups on my ranger. I see too many groups looking for guardians, warriors or mesmers and shunning every other class.

To a certain point, ArenaNet isn't making the dungeon harder, they are just limiting the number of viable choices you have to complete it. The end result is a PvE endgame meta where certain classes are almost completely shunned and certain builds, which should be viable, are never run. Look at how this kind of game design almost completely removed rangers from GW1 end game and you can see how it ended. I really hope this isn't where GW2 is going.

Yeah! Lets remove all content that is even slightly challenging!

#165 CepaCepa

CepaCepa

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 337 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 06:35 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 30 January 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

No. Absolutely not, under no circumstances, do you believe that in an MMO or in life in general the more difficult thing will bring the greater reward. That is completely illogical in any way whatsoever. There are literally tons of very difficult things that you could do all around you - I look around this room and I can literally think of 10 different and very difficult things, none of which would bring any reward whatsoever.
Breaking your left arm using only your right is a pretty difficult task yet totally unrewarding.

What you mean is that most rewards that are easy to get are already claimed, so that going through something difficult is the only remaining viable path to the reward you seek. Yet, of course, if you don't seek the reward, you have no reason to go through the difficult thing. In other words, the perception of the reward always happens before the perception of the challenge. It is only after perceiving the reward that you will weigh the challenge and determine that the difficulty involved is something you want to get involved with, or not.
You do not want a broken left arm, so you never even considered the challenge of breaking it.

The expectation you talk about is the one that the donkey has when he sees the carrot dangling from the stick. If he can just get the carrot, it will taste so good. If he just runs a little faster, it will taste even better, won't it? Of course reward is expected, but why is it? You claim to bring in the assumption from the outside, but where did you get it from? Other games, perhaps?

And yes, we are just programs lol. If you think that humans are anything but biological machines then I don't know why I am talking to you.

Yes. Yes I believe that, and many people have SPECIFICALLY TOLD YOU that they believe that. Stop with the denial already, making an if statement out of vacuum does not help the case when the if statement clearly is not satisfied. Do you have a better way of telling what I believe than me telling you what I believe? If not, listen to me: THAT'S WHAT WE BELIEVE!

You've been going back and forth with different definition of "reward", and I've been trying to be cooperative by switching to your terms of language, only to have you come back and use it in a previously self-denied term. When I use the term to refer to "reward specific to the level of realism, such as game items in a game", you try to label it as "reward in general, INCLUDING psychological joy". When I used the term to refer to "reward in general", you try to argue as if I'm only talking about a particular object or concept. On that note, YES, more difficult things bring more reward, of course! Don't you realize that both "difficult" and "reward" are subject to interpretation and therefore, this statement simply cannot be wrong when used as a "general rule of thumb"?! To argue that a statement is not "thorough" is one thing, to argue it as "wrong" is another, you've got to be kidding me if you're mixing those two up. That's all fine and all, but ultimately: what's with all these finger snapping "no"? You've got no ground to be snappy!

You're simply arguing for the sake of arguing at that point.

And I've no idea that you're stuck on the fundamentals. I'm not challenging you with those statements, you don't have to answer them to show your "knowledge of the case". I assume those to be understood, the only reason that I'm listing those is because I'm going to talk about something relevant and those simply serve as memory refresh. Maybe it's because I've been hearing them everyday at work, but I swear if I hear another cliche regarding the human brain WHILE trying to make it sound like something people don't know (or should be awed by), I'm going to run into some temper issues. Hearing "consciousness is most likely due to connectivity" 50 times a day is worse enough, having people stating those simply as "true" when the scientists themselves are still wondering about it, just isn't right.

Why did people bring assumptions from outside? Oh I can tell you it's FAR from a simple answer like "oh must be the other games" or "oh people are doing it wrong". The thing is, if you can't get past the previous things that we were discussing, there's no way I'm going to list all the reasons and potential factors and experiments and proofs for this problem when you're just going to skip between the lines and ignore all the core contents. This is a forum, it's meant for communication, which means at least an effort into trying to understand each other, not being cynical and critical on minor details and completely avoiding core matters such that I have to come back and spend 5000 words explaining things that I CLEARLY didn't/did mean every time --- I have journal review committee to do that to me on a daily basis thank you very much.

Lastly, the limit of a program is limited by the platform, a closed system with a set of rules can only contain variables adhering to those particular rules. When we say "computer program", we mean the digital system and all the rules that apply there. When we say "humans are programmed", we're talking about the closed system that is this universal world. Changing of concept within a same statement is a violation of logic, so you simply cannot say "people behaving similar as computer program" is the same thing as "people behaving like a program (in the world through biological and causal rules)". Let's not make this into a neon show about how much we understand first year undergraduate philosophy/psychology/neuroscience.

We've derailed this thread far enough, if by this stage there still isn't a consensus (look into my last few threads, I've been trying to come to an agreement to stop these walls of threads which I myself surely is partially responsible for, well I could've tried harder but I certainly refrained from bringing in more topics through picking out minor details, and I tried to emphasis my final claim so that we can get a once sentence agreement on that. But that's clearly not working since I feel you just took 5 seconds to skip through them and just pick out lines that you want to argue against), then it's better to just stop this argument all together. You can think of these things whichever way you want, I've got your message and I've already spoken my mind about it. Let's end it here.

Edited by CepaCepa, 30 January 2013 - 10:49 PM.


#166 Dream Proxy

Dream Proxy

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 89 posts
  • Location:Long Island, NY
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[TS]
  • Server:Sea of Sorrows

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:19 AM

Just to the OP:

why only a vid of the boss fight?  i wanna see the whole run.... :(

what you hidin' mister? ;)

#167 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4794 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:18 AM

View PostCepaCepa, on 30 January 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

Yes. Yes I believe that, and many people have SPECIFICALLY TOLD YOU that they believe that. Stop with the denial already, making an if statement out of vacuum does not help the case when the if statement clearly is not satisfied. Do you have a better way of telling what I believe than me telling you what I believe? If not, listen to me: THAT'S WHAT WE BELIEVE!

You've been going back and forth with different definition of "reward", and I've been trying to be cooperative by switching to your terms of language, only to have you come back and use it in a previously self-denied term. When I use the term to refer to "reward specific to the level of realism, such as game items in a game", you try to label it as "reward in general, INCLUDING psychological joy". When I used the term to refer to "reward in general", you try to argue as if I'm only talking about a particular object or concept. On that note, YES, more difficult things bring more reward, of course! Don't you realize that both "difficult" and "reward" are subject to interpretation and therefore, this statement simply cannot be wrong when used as a "general rule of thumb"?! To argue that a statement is not "thorough" is one thing, to argue it as "wrong" is another, you've got to be kidding me if you're mixing those two up. That's all fine and all, but ultimately: what's with all these finger snapping "no"? You've got no ground to be snappy!

You're simply arguing for the sake of arguing at that point.

And I've no idea that you're stuck on the fundamentals. I'm not challenging you with those statements, you don't have to answer them to show your "knowledge of the case". I assume those to be understood, the only reason that I'm listing those is because I'm going to talk about something relevant and those simply serve as memory refresh. Maybe it's because I've been hearing them everyday at work, but I swear if I hear another cliche regarding the human brain WHILE trying to make it sound like something people don't know (or should be awed by), I'm going to run into some temper issues. Hearing "consciousness is most likely due to connectivity" 50 times a day is worse enough, having people stating those simply as "true" when the scientists themselves are still wondering about it, just isn't right.

Why did people bring assumptions from outside? Oh I can tell you it's FAR from a simple answer like "oh must be the other games" or "oh people are doing it wrong". The thing is, if you can't get past the previous things that we were discussing, there's no way I'm going to list all the reasons and potential factors and experiments and proofs for this problem when you're just going to skip between the lines and ignore all the core contents. This is a forum, it's meant for communication, which means at least an effort into trying to understand each other, not being cynical and critical on minor details and completely avoiding core matters such that I have to come back and spend 5000 words explaining things that I CLEARLY didn't/did mean every time --- I have journal review committee to do that to me on a daily basis thank you very much.

Lastly, the limit of a program is limited by the platform, a closed system with a set of rules can only contain variables adhering to those particular rules. When we say "computer program", we mean the digital system and all the rules that apply there. When we say "humans are programmed", we're talking about the closed system that is this universal world. Changing of concept within a same statement is a violation of logic, so you simply cannot say "people behaving similar as computer program" is the same thing as "people behaving like a program (in the world through biological and causal rules)". Let's not make this into a neon show about how much we understand first year undergraduate philosophy/psychology/neuroscience.

We've derailed this thread far enough, if by this stage there still isn't a consensus (look into my last few threads, I've been trying to come to an agreement to stop these walls of threads which I myself surely is partially responsible for, well I could've tried harder but I certainly refrained from bringing in more topics through picking out minor details, and I tried to emphasis my final claim so that we can get a once sentence agreement on that. But that's clearly not working since I feel you just took 5 seconds to skip through them and just pick out lines that you want to argue against), then it's better to just stop this argument all together. You can think of these things whichever way you want, I've got your message and I've already spoken my mind about it. Let's end it here.
It doesn't matter much what people say. Most people have no idea, and I really mean no idea about the mechanics of their own thought processes. Furthermore it is entirely and completely false that people expect difficult things to be more rewarding. For example, it is very difficult to survive a eating 3 kg arsenic. Some would say impossible. I say that if you by some completely *ing freak accident survive (maybe you throw up before absorbing much) your body would be completely destroyed for the remainder of your life.

NO. YOU DO NOT EXPECT DIFFICULT THINGS TO BRING HIGH REWARDS. YOU EXPECT HIGH REWARDS TO REQUIRE HIGH DIFFICULTY. THESE TWO THINGS ARE NOT THE SAME.

Bolded, italicized, underlined caps in bigger than usual font. I'm sure you'll read it, but I'm not sure you'll get it. The expectation of any realistic human being is that in order to get what s/he wants (always the first perception), s/he might have to go through difficulty  The reverse is not true because there is provably many difficulties that does not bring any reward whatsoever. Since that is the expectation you bring with you into the hyperreality, that does not give you any reason to expect higher rewards. It's a one-way implication.

I don't care about your temper issues or about your imaginary free will, because you are missing entirely fundamental things about this. No one is talking to you about what consciousness is because you don't even pass Logic 101.

If you want to "end it here", that's fine, but if you want to actually try to understand things like what a reward structure for a game is, and that is certainly something quite removed from what we've been talking about so far, you should really try to get the basics handled first.

#168 Dream Proxy

Dream Proxy

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 89 posts
  • Location:Long Island, NY
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[TS]
  • Server:Sea of Sorrows

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:35 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 31 January 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

NO. YOU DO NOT EXPECT DIFFICULT THINGS TO BRING HIGH REWARDS. YOU EXPECT HIGH REWARDS TO REQUIRE HIGH DIFFICULTY. THESE TWO THINGS ARE NOT THE SAME.


I would like to amend this to say something like "you expect high rewards to require high difficulty or a lot of a luck," since you can do a bunch of stuff in gw 2 (cof path 1, dragon fights, etc) which arguably are -not- difficult at all, yet have the possibility to yield precursors and other "high rewards" at random from the chests.


but yeah, back on topic... mr OP didn't show the whole run.... :huh:

Edited by xxalucard, 31 January 2013 - 04:36 PM.


#169 FoxBat

FoxBat

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 3975 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:51 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 30 January 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

Machines aren't always programs, but all programmable machines have programs... :P And a human is just a self-programming machine.
It's not as easy as doing what you're told to do. That isn't source code, it's actually just input to the self-learning function... Like everything else.

Current machines are frankly pretty shit at self-programming themselves into anything useful. That's why true, learning AI is so rudimentary and so far has relatively few commercial applications compared to all the "dumb" programs running on everyone's hardware. So you're talking about theoretical future (but certainly possible) machines more than anything we really have much experience at.

I'm not trying to posit anything like free will or the human spirit or whatever. I'm saying that highly parallelized, redundant, changing, evolving, free associating, dynamic yet tending towards homeostatis lifeform, is orders of magnitude more complicated than the barely multi-threaded things we have running on inert metals, and trying to draw an analogy between the two given the relative primitiveness of the latter is very limited. One day that may change with something like sentient machines, but they'd probably act alot more like lifeforms than our current machines, which would make current machines an extremely weak model for understanding either of them. If nothing else they are certainly poor models for understanding how humans are trained or conditioned into certain behaviors, given how little of our daily technology actually learns anything versus simply doing what it is programmed to do.

Edited by FoxBat, 31 January 2013 - 04:59 PM.


#170 Kumori Tensei

Kumori Tensei

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 150 posts
  • Guild Tag:[One]
  • Server:Yak’s Bend

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:14 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 31 January 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

Furthermore it is entirely and completely false that people expect difficult things to be more rewarding. For example, it is very difficult to survive a eating 3 kg arsenic. Some would say impossible.

most of what you said has merit...butt his part is absolute shit tbh. straw manning and argument like this is a cheap tactic and is utterly nonsensical. lets talk about what you graciously brought up, thought process. No normal person (using "normal" loosely here meaning conforming to general human behavior) would think of drinking arsenic when asked whats hard to do...what is hard to do? build a car...fly a plane...run a marathon...you know normal stuff. So yes...generally speaking when people think of more difficult things, the reward should also be higher... people expect that. It's hard as shit to climb mount Everest...the reward is ever higher.

#171 CepaCepa

CepaCepa

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 337 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 07:55 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 31 January 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

I don't care about your temper issues or about your imaginary free will, because you are missing entirely fundamental things about this. No one is talking to you about what consciousness is because you don't even pass Logic 101.

If you want to "end it here", that's fine, but if you want to actually try to understand things like what a reward structure for a game is, and that is certainly something quite removed from what we've been talking about so far, you should really try to get the basics handled first.

Fundamental things? Like things I teach undergrads? Wait until you have 20 journal papers in neuroscience before lecturing me please. I said discussion is over, so it's over now, not going to go any further with this.

I'll take it as you wanted a "last comback" to my previous post, which is fine, I shall refrain from answering anything in particular despite disagreement. Can we end it now? And please don't bother answering that question.

Edited by CepaCepa, 31 January 2013 - 08:06 PM.


#172 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4794 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:57 AM

View PostCepaCepa, on 31 January 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:

Fundamental things? Like things I teach undergrads? Wait until you have 20 journal papers in neuroscience before lecturing me please. I said discussion is over, so it's over now, not going to go any further with this.

I'll take it as you wanted a "last comback" to my previous post, which is fine, I shall refrain from answering anything in particular despite disagreement. Can we end it now? And please don't bother answering that question.
This isn't about "neuroscience", it's about fundamental logic.

Reward: R
Difficulty: D

Your claim: expectation that D -> R

This is unreasonable since the material implication is false in the majority of cases where D = 1 (since R = 0). Thus your claim would entail that humans would hold expectations that would hold extremely low evolutionary values (such as thinking that swimming in lava is a good idea).

Period.

View PostKumori Tensei, on 31 January 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:

most of what you said has merit...butt his part is absolute shit tbh. straw manning and argument like this is a cheap tactic and is utterly nonsensical. lets talk about what you graciously brought up, thought process. No normal person (using "normal" loosely here meaning conforming to general human behavior) would think of drinking arsenic when asked whats hard to do...what is hard to do? build a car...fly a plane...run a marathon...you know normal stuff. So yes...generally speaking when people think of more difficult things, the reward should also be higher... people expect that. It's hard as shit to climb mount Everest...the reward is ever higher.
Yes, exactly. You filter out all the bullshit automatically, because most things that are difficult to do yields no reward whatsoever, and is potentially damaging to you. Thank you for making my point - the reward is considered first, then the difficulty. This happens so automatically that you find yourself hard pressed to find an unrewarding "difficult thing" that doesn't seem completely ridiculous to even attempt.

View PostFoxBat, on 31 January 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

Current machines are frankly pretty shit at self-programming themselves into anything useful. That's why true, learning AI is so rudimentary and so far has relatively few commercial applications compared to all the "dumb" programs running on everyone's hardware. So you're talking about theoretical future (but certainly possible) machines more than anything we really have much experience at.

I'm not trying to posit anything like free will or the human spirit or whatever. I'm saying that highly parallelized, redundant, changing, evolving, free associating, dynamic yet tending towards homeostatis lifeform, is orders of magnitude more complicated than the barely multi-threaded things we have running on inert metals, and trying to draw an analogy between the two given the relative primitiveness of the latter is very limited. One day that may change with something like sentient machines, but they'd probably act alot more like lifeforms than our current machines, which would make current machines an extremely weak model for understanding either of them. If nothing else they are certainly poor models for understanding how humans are trained or conditioned into certain behaviors, given how little of our daily technology actually learns anything versus simply doing what it is programmed to do.
I'm talking about right now, because I'm talking about humans... Yes agreed that self-learning machines (the ones that we build) is pretty crappy compared to us. However there's an excuse, since we have had quite a lot longer development time...

Totally agreed about the rest. Even an extremely gross simplification of our (limited) understanding of the human mind is still more complex than any ML program running on a computer.

View Postxxalucard, on 31 January 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

I would like to amend this to say something like "you expect high rewards to require high difficulty or a lot of a luck," since you can do a bunch of stuff in gw 2 (cof path 1, dragon fights, etc) which arguably are -not- difficult at all, yet have the possibility to yield precursors and other "high rewards" at random from the chests.


but yeah, back on topic... mr OP didn't show the whole run.... :huh:
Sorry, yes, "difficulty" in this discussion can be taken to mean real difficulty, or luck, or sometimes just a lot of time.

#173 Kumori Tensei

Kumori Tensei

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 150 posts
  • Guild Tag:[One]
  • Server:Yak’s Bend

Posted 02 February 2013 - 02:12 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 01 February 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

Yes, exactly. You filter out all the bullshit automatically, because most things that are difficult to do yields no reward whatsoever, and is potentially damaging to you. Thank you for making my point - the reward is considered first, then the difficulty. This happens so automatically that you find yourself hard pressed to find an unrewarding "difficult thing" that doesn't seem completely ridiculous to even attempt.


what is considered first was never what i was even attempting to discuss...i agree with you that reward is considered first, however we were talking about expectations unless I'm utterly delusional about what you or i posted prior to this which i hope isn't the case. So if we are talking about expectations...yes difficulty is followed by the expectation of a greater reward...always. and because you filter out bullshit does not mean i was making your point...you void, entirely, irrational and near non-existent possibilities because there is no need to say I'm not touching anything ever because molecules can't touch each other so we don't touch anything ever. BUT if you want to complicate things further....then by all means do, and I would yield to the fact that you were absolutely right, that hard things, like jumping in a volcano, do not yield a greater reward.

Edited by Kumori Tensei, 02 February 2013 - 02:13 PM.


#174 Dream Proxy

Dream Proxy

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 89 posts
  • Location:Long Island, NY
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[TS]
  • Server:Sea of Sorrows

Posted 03 February 2013 - 08:12 AM

I think the whole off-topic argument goes nowhere because "rewards" in general are completely subjective.

Look at www.speeddemosarchive.com , for example.

There, people have run games over and over again to try and get the fastest world-record time in completing them.  There's no money-reward, no real fame to be gained (except for some youtube runs that become popular-- though not everyone posts their run on youtube), and nothing in their life really changes except for the the sense of accomplishment and mastery of the game.  And even then, a lot of runners usually state that they could have "done it better," and that they will hopefully one day "improve it."  So it's not even like they finished a "perfect run."

Where's the reward for doing that?  It's their own sense of mastery over the game and general love for it.

Maybe someone who jumps in a volcano considers ending their life a reward, maybe someone who drinks poison thinks the same thing.


The argument would never end and never run out of obscure examples, because it's all personal opinion.  There's no real way to actually prove your points either way-- since all sorts of people think differently.

If someone argued about how much damage an attack does, for example, you could prove them right or wrong by recording a video of yourself doing the attack and showing how much damage it does.  It's difficult to argue with definite rules proven by a game, and without another video countering it-- you'd have at least temporarily proven it.

This is something you can't really prove though, so what's the point in arguing? :(

#175 Illein

Illein

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2039 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 08:38 AM

View Postxxalucard, on 03 February 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

I think the whole off-topic argument goes nowhere because "rewards" in general are completely subjective.

Look at www.speeddemosarchive.com , for example.

There, people have run games over and over again to try and get the fastest world-record time in completing them.  There's no money-reward, no real fame to be gained (except for some youtube runs that become popular-- though not everyone posts their run on youtube), and nothing in their life really changes except for the the sense of accomplishment and mastery of the game.  And even then, a lot of runners usually state that they could have "done it better," and that they will hopefully one day "improve it."  So it's not even like they finished a "perfect run."

Where's the reward for doing that?  It's their own sense of mastery over the game and general love for it.

Maybe someone who jumps in a volcano considers ending their life a reward, maybe someone who drinks poison thinks the same thing.


The argument would never end and never run out of obscure examples, because it's all personal opinion.  There's no real way to actually prove your points either way-- since all sorts of people think differently.

If someone argued about how much damage an attack does, for example, you could prove them right or wrong by recording a video of yourself doing the attack and showing how much damage it does.  It's difficult to argue with definite rules proven by a game, and without another video countering it-- you'd have at least temporarily proven it.

This is something you can't really prove though, so what's the point in arguing? :(

That's a bit odd. Because the example you mentioned is a site of people setting world records at game play-throughs. Holding said world record does definitely hold a certain satisfaction for those interested in that activity.

However, playing a MMORPG is about improving, it's always about improving - if you can't progress stats wise you want to progress cosmetically - the point of MMO's is that they're never ending entertainment - so if you reach the point of no personal progression too quickly, it'll be less enjoyable for you. If you'd literally never reach it, it'd be equally frustrating, hence why most MMO's pause progress at various points in their product's cycle (aside from the obvious development time that's needed).

To get back to GW2: If you're doing fractals, and to be 80 we talk about probably ~600/700 fractals and you happen to be of the unlucky sort and don't get anything but account-bound epics at best, here and there a rare that may or may not hold a glob of ectoplasm - it feels unrewarding, full stop.

Wish their loot tables for fractals would look something like tiered loot:

50 % Common Drop
40 % Uncommon Drop
10 % Rare Drop
--------------------
Those chances are applied 3x for 3 Item drops

+
5 % Chance for a correlating core
1 % Chance for a correlating lodestone

Unknown fractal Boss chest:

40 % Common Drop
35 % Uncommon Drop
25 % Rare Drop
--------------------
Those chances are applied 3x for 3 Item drops

+

100% for 1 random core/lodestone

--------------------

That'd feel rewarding for me, but not potentially debunk the economy. I am just interested why developers insist on completely RNG loot - because I hate it, I don't see how it's rewarding if you're doing 40+ Fractals and save for Relics that are pretty much useless at that point, I am getting subjectively felt absolutely NO better reward than running L2 - the only thing that really chances is the chance of having a fractal weapon skin in the daily chests and again - some people get 7 of them at level 20, others never see one. How is that still considered fun or even remotely good game design?

I don't know.

As a by the by: I'll be the first to admit that I'd like high difficulty to be a requirement to high reward, because you know - challenges are great.

#176 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4794 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 09:52 AM

View Postxxalucard, on 03 February 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

Where's the reward for doing that?  It's their own sense of mastery over the game and general love for it.
Exactly, they are doing it for the challenge. And I wish that there would be an MMO that you'd play for the challenge, not the rewards.

#177 dazzyy

dazzyy

    Pale Tree Seedling

  • New Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:48 PM

View Postxxalucard, on 31 January 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

Just to the OP:

why only a vid of the boss fight?  i wanna see the whole run.... :(

what you hidin' mister? ;)

to Mr.Dream Proxy:
i dont understand what u meant :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users