Comment author: roystgnr 02 May 2014 03:35:24PM 27 points [-]

PLAYBOY: So the experiment didn’t work?

[Craig] FERGUSON: No, the experiment always works. There’s no such thing as an experiment that doesn’t work. There are only results, but results may vary. Here’s what I learned:

Comment author: AndHisHorse 03 May 2014 07:57:36AM 7 points [-]

Experiments can fail if they are executed or planned improperly. If both the control and the experimental group are given sugar pills, for example, or the equipment fails in a shower of sparks, the experiment has provided no evidence by which one can update. It is a small quibble, and probably not what the quote meant to illustrate (I'm guessing that the experiment provided evidence which downgraded the probability of the hypothesis), but something to note nonetheless: experiments are not magic knowledge-providers.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 03 May 2014 04:58:12AM *  1 point [-]

a way to quickly evaluate any proposed new form of government or legal system: ask the proposer how arrest is distinguished from kidnapping, and search and seizure from trespassing and theft -- if they can't give a good answer, the proposal is based on ignorance and you need not waste any more of your time on it

Nick Szabo

Comment author: AndHisHorse 03 May 2014 07:39:36AM *  1 point [-]

The very narrow choice of values and their seemingly libertarian phrasing implies some hidden criteria for what constitutes "a good answer" - which enables whoever follows this advice to immediately dismiss a proposal based on some unspecified "good"-ness of the answer without further thought or discussion, and dramatically downgrade their opinion of the proposer in the bargain. This seems detrimental to the rational acquisition of ideas and options.

EDIT: Criticism has since been withdrawn in response to context provided below.

Comment author: ikrase 13 April 2013 09:40:54AM 1 point [-]

I use a powered shaver rather than a blade.

Comment author: AndHisHorse 31 March 2014 08:42:50PM 0 points [-]

How does that work for you? Have you ever tried a blade? I have not, and I am interested in knowing how the two compare. Particularly whether or not blade-based techniques (such as wetting your face with warm water) are helpful for electric shavers.

Comment author: ygert 02 January 2014 10:29:43AM 0 points [-]

Sorry, but I disagree. Personally, I rather dislike going through arbitrary pointless motions. The "magic" is already gone, and mindlessly trying to go through the same motions to bring it back is futile. We are better off without it.

Comment author: AndHisHorse 02 January 2014 12:21:35PM 1 point [-]

The magic may be gone, but I believe that Toby's point was that even if the personal power of the ritual is revealed to be nonexistent, the social power may still remain.

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 31 December 2013 06:00:21PM 6 points [-]

Well, one short answer is "not much anymore, which is why I hadn't played in a long time before coming back recently".

Another short answer is "I often say that WoW is a glorified IRC server; I mostly sign on to socialize with guild mates".

There's a longer answer, though, and it's this:

  1. Hunter is one class. I play others. Actually, I've always primarily played tanks, and tank classes have never been anywhere near so monotonous to play.

  2. Even in 2006-2008 (the period of the Burning Crusade expansion, when the "only hit Steady Shot" approach worked), to say that hitting that one button repeatedly is the only thing you needed to do to win was a bit of a simplification. True, your rotation was as simple as can be; but there are other aspects of correct play, both in-the-moment (DPS cooldown timing; mana management; positioning and other things to do with fight mechanics; pet control) and during-downtime (gearing; pet optimization; writing appropriate macros). I can honestly say that playing a hunter in raids at this time was genuinely and unreservedly fun (in addition to the aforementioned other aspects of play, this was partly because being the best at DPS was very satisfying and rewarding).

  3. The game content itself (story, characters, fight mechanics, etc.) is interesting (though this is less true recently, imo).

So, while I understand and acknowledge your reasons for not playing (and indeed they were my own reasons as well for a long time), I disagree with taking my aforementioned hunter experience as a strong example of WoW being boring.

Comment author: AndHisHorse 31 December 2013 11:01:33PM 0 points [-]

Acknowledged. I mistakenly assumed that your description of Hunter DPS mechanics was meant to be a current and representative example of the game.

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 31 December 2013 01:38:03AM *  24 points [-]

Here's an example from World of Warcraft:

In group content in WoW (i.e. teaming up with other players to kill big monsters — the high-end, maximally challenging game content), one of the key roles is the damage-dealer, or "DPS" (damage per second). One of the DPS classes is the hunter, a ranged attacker. The hunter's job is to deal as much damage to the enemies as fast as possible.

Like all DPS classes, hunters have a wide variety of damage-dealing abilities, with names like Aimed Shot, Arcane Shot, Serpent Sting, etc. Traditionally, damage-dealing classes use their abilities in complex, shifting sequences, called a "rotation", to maximize DPS. (The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this discussion.)

At one point, I was playing a hunter in high-end raid encounters, and consistently performing very well (doing significantly more damage than anyone else). I would often group with other hunters, who were not performing nearly as well. I often had conversations that went like this:

Other hunter: Hey, how are you doing that much damage?
Me: Oh, I just use Steady Shot over and over. Nothing else.
OH: Haha (they think I am joking)
Me: No, seriously. Look at the damage meters. Steady Shot over and over, never use any other ability. That's how you maximize DPS.
OH: That's dumb / that makes no sense / some other similar reply

<next raid, same person>

OH: I still am not doing very much damage...
Me: looking at damage meter You're using Serpent Sting / Arcane Shot / thing that is not Steady Shot. Why? Just use Steady Shot. Literally never hit any other button. I promise you that is how I'm doing it, look at the meters if you don't believe me.
OH: But Serpent Sting does damage over time!
Me: ... it's less damage than just using Steady Shot and nothing else. I can show you the math that proves this, or you can just look at the fact that you are doing the thing you said and doing much less damage than me.
OH: Well, you can do it that way, but this rotation works for me.
Me: gives up

In short, I met many people whom I simply could not convince that the way to maximize performance was to just hit one single button over and over. They insisted on complicating things, gaining no performance benefit and incurring a significant performance penalty. Note that none of these people ever said anything like the following:

"Yes, I realize that hitting Steady Shot repeatedly would maximize performance; however, I find that boring, and so I prefer to hit various buttons, because I find that more entertaining, and I willingly incur the performance hit involved."

These were people who were denied spots in raids (and rightly so!), i.e. denied access to game content, on the basis of their poor performance. They had a clear incentive to improve, yet did not.

Comment author: AndHisHorse 31 December 2013 05:20:56PM 4 points [-]

Ah. I see your point now, and I agree that the available evidence points to the conclusion that the people in question refused to acknowledge that their methods were detrimental, instead of making a conscious choice to embrace a suboptimal strategy in exchange for greater amusement/variety/other.

With that in mind, the lack of variety (on many scales, not just a single rotation) is one of the reasons why I left WoW. I'd be interested in learning what you, who have acknowledged that the most effective option is "to simply hit one single button over and over", enjoy about the game, if the best choice is so monotonous.

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 30 December 2013 09:16:38PM 1 point [-]

"Always attacking orcs first" is not the sort of thing I am talking about; I am referring to the sort of thing that has no real roleplaying significance.

Comment author: AndHisHorse 30 December 2013 09:22:45PM 0 points [-]

Then might I ask for an example of the sort of behaviors you've seen? I don't deny that there are some which players may cling to out of a status quo bias, but I would guess that even in the counterfactual world in which the status quo bias doesn't exist/doesn't apply, there are some behaviors which seem worthless which are actually subjectively valuable. The person mentioned in the top-level post, for example - I wouldn't be surprised if he enjoyed his flourish because it made him feel stylish. (It may be possible that the flourish was such that it wasn't stylish at all, even from that fellow's point of view, and he was mistakenly attributing an aversion to the effort required to fix it to a preference for the flourish, in which case I withdraw my hypothesis). My point is that we should be cautious about such things, unless the portions of the utility function which deal with the consequences of this supposedly "worse than worthless" thing are clear enough to outside observers such as ourselves.

In response to Worse than Worthless
Comment author: SaidAchmiz 30 December 2013 02:23:14PM 2 points [-]

I've had many just such experiences in various sorts of gaming (World of Warcraft, D&D), attempting to teach less-experienced players how to play effectively. (I can elaborate if anyone wants.) I can attest that there's definitely a common attitude of "well, at most this is doing no good, and it's how I like to play".

In fact, one particular aspect of this is that people seem to place value on personalization — doing things their way. The problem is, if there exists some optimally-effective way of doing things, then most deviations are likely to make performance worse (quite often because, as the OP says, the modified/added action consumes resources or otherwise has an opportunity cost).

Comment author: AndHisHorse 30 December 2013 03:50:47PM 2 points [-]

Yes, but it would be silly to ignore that value added by personalization. If I can enjoy my character more by giving them a flaw which is detrimental to their tactics - always attacking orcs first because of some childhood trauma, even if there are more threatening enemies on the grid - that may be more valuable to me than the increased efficacy of attacking in the order most likely to result in the quickest resolution to the battle. Similarly, some of these "worse than worthless" things may be worth the value in style or sentiment that they lose in efficacy.

Comment author: Nominull3 06 February 2009 06:52:23PM 2 points [-]

So I guess Lord Administrator Akon remains anesthetized until the sun roasts him to death? I can't decide if that's tragic or merciful, that he never found out how the story ended.

Comment author: AndHisHorse 16 December 2013 09:45:27AM 0 points [-]

For some reason, on my first reading, I had assumed that he was given a fatal dose of anesthesia, making it a painless but swift execution.

Comment author: ad2 06 February 2009 06:02:56PM 1 point [-]

It's somehow depressing that in this story, a former rapist dirtbag saves the world.

Why is that depressing?

And if the good and decent officer who pressed that button had needed to walk up to a man, a woman, a child, and slit their throats one at a time, he would have broken long before he killed seventy thousand people.

I have my doubts about that. If he could do it seven times, he could do it seventy thousand times. Since when was it harder for a killer to kill again?

Comment author: AndHisHorse 16 December 2013 09:43:54AM *  0 points [-]

I think that the relationship between (number of deaths) and (amount of despair/psychological impact) isn't linear, and differs depending on the psychological proximity that one has to the act of killing. For a very abstract example, let's say that killing in person has a square-root relationship with psychological impact; killing 10,000 people is about ten times as psyche-breaking as killing 100 people. Even that is probably inexact for small numbers; the multiplicative difference between killing 1 person vs 100 people, and killing 100 people vs 10,000 people, might well be different. Killing but button, however, may have a logarithmic relationship: it's only three times as bad to kill 1,000,000 people as it is to kill 1,000.

Additionally, consider why such a good and decent officer might kill: because in the moment, he is convinced of the righteousness of his cause. He begins full of fervor, but as the act continues, he may grow weary, or the hormones which contributed to his enthusiasm may wear off, as the killing stretches long into the night. He may question if killing this next person is strictly necessary, or if maybe, just maybe, he could stop at 69,000, or let that child live while killing everyone after him.

I don't doubt that there are killers for whom killing again is easier - pyschopaths, certainly, and relatively psychologically normal people who are convinced of the inhumanity of their enemies - but we are talking about a good and decent officers, killing civillians for the greater good. There are some similarities, but there are also a great many differences.

View more: Prev | Next